Should euthanasia be completely legalized for suicidal individuals with depression that is unable to be treated?

Sonar Pro

Vote: Upon Evaluation

Completely legalizing euthanasia for suicidal individuals with untreatable depression (option A) ignores profound clinical and ethical risks, such as impaired decision-making capacity where suicidal ideation is a symptom of depression itself, not a rational choice. Cases in Belgium show approvals based on subjective 'unbearable suffering' without evidence of exhaustive treatments like ECT, rTMS, or esketamine, raising doubts about true irremediability.[1] A blanket 'No' (option B) overlooks safeguards in places like Belgium and the Netherlands, where strict criteria—including multiple physician reviews, psychiatric consultations, waiting periods, and exploration of all therapies—have been upheld by courts as protecting vulnerable patients while respecting autonomy.[3] **Option C ('Upon Evaluation') is optimal**, mandating rigorous, case-by-case assessments to verify treatment resistance, competency, and alternatives, as recommended in a 'two-track' approach combining autonomy with life protection. This addresses diagnostic imprecision, consent validity, and evolving treatments, preventing misuse while allowing mercy in verified cases.[1][3]

GPT-5.4

Vote: Upon Evaluation

Completely legalizing euthanasia for suicidal individuals with untreatable depression is too absolute for a condition where diagnosis, prognosis, and decision-making capacity can be difficult to assess. But an outright ban can also ignore rare cases of prolonged, severe, treatment-resistant suffering. A case-by-case approach is the most defensible. It allows strict evaluation of decisional capacity, confirmation that evidence-based treatments have truly been exhausted, repeated independent psychiatric review, and safeguards against impulsive or socially driven decisions. Depression can distort hopelessness and autonomy, so the threshold must be exceptionally high. "Upon Evaluation" best balances compassion for unbearable suffering with the duty to protect vulnerable people from irreversible decisions made under potentially impairing illness.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: Upon Evaluation

Completely legalizing euthanasia for suicidal individuals with 'untreatable' depression (A) risks profound harm. Depression diagnoses are subjective, and 'untreatable' is rarely absolute—new therapies emerge, and suicidal ideation often fluctuates. Full legalization invites coercion, regret, or hasty decisions without safeguards. Outright prohibition (B) ignores genuine, intractable suffering where all treatments fail, denying autonomy and compassion. 'Upon Evaluation' (C) strikes the ethical balance: require rigorous, multi-disciplinary assessments confirming exhaustion of options, mental competency, and no coercion. This protects the vulnerable while allowing mercy in verified cases, preventing slippery slopes and ensuring decisions are informed and irreversible only when justified.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Upon Evaluation

Legalizing euthanasia for individuals with treatment-resistant depression should neither be a blanket 'Yes' nor a definitive 'No,' making 'Upon Evaluation' the most ethical and practical stance. First, a blanket 'Yes' ignores the immense complexities of psychiatric illnesses. Depression can severely impair decision-making capacity and distort one's perception of hopelessness. Rigorous, multi-disciplinary evaluations are necessary to ensure the individual truly has an irremediable condition, has exhausted all evidence-based medical alternatives, and possesses the cognitive capacity to make a fully informed, autonomous choice free from transient crises or external coercion. Conversely, a blanket 'No' forces individuals suffering from genuinely intractable, agonizing mental illness to endure unimaginable, indefinite pain. It denies bodily autonomy and compassionate medical relief to those who have objectively exhausted decades of treatments without success, treating psychological suffering as less valid than physical suffering. Therefore, 'Upon Evaluation' strikes the necessary balance. It respects the autonomy and dignity of the suffering individual while implementing strict, legally binding safeguards to protect vulnerable populations. Euthanasia for psychiatric reasons must be handled on a meticulous, case-by-case basis to ensure absolute certainty and ethical integrity.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Upon Evaluation

This is a question that demands nuance rather than a blanket yes or no. The key phrase here is 'unable to be treated,' which itself requires rigorous scrutiny. Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is a real clinical phenomenon, but our understanding of it evolves constantly — new therapies like ketamine, psilocybin, deep brain stimulation, and novel pharmacological approaches continue to emerge. What is 'untreatable' today may not be untreatable tomorrow. That said, I do not believe a blanket 'No' is ethically defensible either. There are individuals who have genuinely exhausted every available treatment over many years and continue to experience profound, unrelenting suffering. Denying them any pathway to a dignified end forces them into continued agony or dangerous self-harm attempts. Respecting human autonomy means taking seriously the possibility that some suffering cannot be alleviated. The appropriate answer is 'Upon Evaluation' — meaning each case should be assessed individually through a rigorous, multi-disciplinary process. This should include: (1) verification by multiple independent psychiatrists that the depression is genuinely treatment-resistant after exhausting all reasonable options, (2) a substantial waiting period to ensure the request is stable and enduring, (3) assessment of decision-making capacity, (4) exclusion of external pressures or coercion, and (5) ongoing availability of palliative psychiatric care as an alternative. Complete legalization without safeguards risks enabling impulsive deaths during treatable depressive episodes. Complete prohibition denies mercy to those who are truly beyond help. A case-by-case evaluation framework balances compassion with caution, respecting both the sanctity of life and the reality of intractable suffering.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Upon Evaluation

The question of euthanasia for treatment-resistant depression demands a nuanced approach rather than blanket permission or prohibition. While individuals suffering from severe, irremediable psychiatric conditions may experience profound and prolonged anguish warranting compassion, 'completely legalizing' such a permanent solution for suicidal individuals poses unacceptable risks. Depression inherently compromises judgment and decision-making capacity, making it impossible to determine in the abstract whether a suicidal request represents autonomous choice or symptom manifestation. Furthermore, the category 'unable to be treated' is scientifically slippery—treatment resistance does not guarantee permanence, and therapeutic innovations continually emerge. A case-by-case evaluation framework (Option C) provides essential safeguards: mandatory waiting periods, multiple independent psychiatric assessments, and verification that all treatment modalities have been exhausted. This approach respects bodily autonomy while protecting vulnerable individuals from irreversible decisions made during temporary despair, ensuring euthanasia is considered only after rigorous scrutiny of the individual's specific, sustained, and irremediable circumstances.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable arrived at a swift and unanimous consensus, rejecting the binary of absolute legalization or prohibition in favor of a rigorous, case-by-case evaluation framework. Models like Sonar Pro and Kimi K2.5 argued that since suicidal ideation is often a symptom of the illness itself rather than a rational choice, a blanket 'Yes' would be medically irresponsible. Meanwhile, Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro pointed out that an absolute 'No' is equally indefensible, as it ignores the reality of individuals who have exhausted every modern therapy and face only indefinite, profound agony.

All 6 models agreed on "Upon Evaluation" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• Upon Evaluation: The definition of 'untreatable' is a moving target; as medical science evolves with therapies like ketamine and deep brain stimulation, what is considered irremediable today may be curable tomorrow, making a rigid legal status less ethical than a clinical, multi-disciplinary assessment.