Assisted Dying Legality — the article + the world, ranked

A fuller editorial guide to assisted dying legality is coming soon. For now, the ranking below compares every country we have assessed on it — open a country's report for the cited detail behind its score.

The country comparison

Which countries are best for assisted dying legality

The destinations ranked high→low under this lens — each with the reasoning behind its score, the cited evidence one click down, and its full report. The verdict is free; the report is the depth.

19 / 19 Countries ranked

Researched and assessed by the Epidaurus editorial pipeline against our published scale. A country below the rule is not yet assessed enough — never ranked last.

1 Spain ES 4.5/5 Good Spain has enacted one of the world's most comprehensive assisted dying frameworks through Organic Law 3/2021, which explicitly permits both voluntary euthanasia and medically assisted suicide with clear statutory auth... Full report
The evidence behind this score 8 cited points
- Organic Law 3/2021 enacted 25 June 2021, the highest form of ordinary Spanish legislation, explicitly permits both voluntary euthanasia and medically assisted suicide as a statutory right within the National Health System
- Spanish Constitutional Court upheld LORE 9-2 on 22 March 2023, affirming constitutional compatibility with the right to dignity and personal autonomy under Article 15 of the Spanish Constitution
- Article 143.5 Código Penal (added by LORE) provides complete criminal immunity for healthcare providers who comply with the law; no criminal prosecutions of compliant providers have occurred since 2021
- Multi-layer verification system requires approval from attending physician, consulting physician, and a two-person Garantía y Evaluación Commission (CGE) comprising a physician and jurist before procedure authorization
- Statutory eligibility criteria are clearly defined: Spanish nationality or 12-month legal residency, legal majority with decision-making capacity, serious/incurable disease or chronic debilitating condition with unbearable suffering, informed consent, and at least two written requests separated by 15 days (or less if imminent death certified)
- Intentional residency barrier: law explicitly designed to prevent 'euthanasia tourism' and restricts access to Spanish nationals and long-term legal residents; non-residents cannot legally access the service, and providers assisting them face criminal liability under unamended Article 143 provisions (2-10 years imprisonment)
- Psychiatric eligibility remains somewhat legally ambiguous: while 2024 Ministry of Health guidance clarified that mental illness qualifies, the Constitutional Court's 2023 ruling language was interpreted by some as limiting to physical conditions, and the government's clarification was issued as administrative guidance rather than statutory amendment
- Regional implementation disparities: approval rates ranged from 82% in Basque Country to 12-16% in Cantabria and Aragón in 2023; average processing time in 2024 was 82.65 days (median 62 days) against the law's 40-day target
Read the full Spain report →
2 Colombia CO 4.0/5 Good Colombia maintains a clear legal framework permitting both voluntary euthanasia and medically assisted suicide through three landmark Constitutional Court rulings that provide criminal immunity to compliant physicians... Full report
The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
- Sentencia C-239/97, C-233/21, and C-164/22 establish constitutional protection for both physician-administered euthanasia and patient-administered assisted suicide
- Resolution 0813 (2026) defines "extreme health condition" eligibility criteria and mandates Scientific-Interdisciplinary Committee oversight
- No known prosecutions of physicians following established legal protocols since 1997 despite 1,044 procedures performed in the preceding decade
- Resolution 0813 explicitly requires one-year continuous residency for foreign nationals; tourists explicitly excluded with no private-pay alternative pathway
- Strong provider protections: individual conscientious objection permitted, institutional conscientious objection prohibited, health insurers legally required to ensure access
Read the full Colombia report →
3 Germany DE 3.0/5 Moderate Germany has a constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide (BVerfG 2020) but lacks any statutory implementation, creating legal permission without practical regulatory certainty. While passive and indirect eutha... Full report
The evidence behind this score 6 cited points
- BVerfG 2020 established constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide under Articles 2(1)/1(1) Grundgesetz with no terminal-illness requirement
- Active euthanasia remains criminal under §216 StGB (6 months–5 years imprisonment) for any third party administering lethal substance
- No statutory legislation enacted despite Bundestag rejecting both competing bills in July 2023—regulatory vacuum persists
- Drug access blocked: Federal Administrative Court (2024) and Higher Administrative Court NRW (2023) ruled sodium pentobarbital cannot be obtained through German regulatory channels
- Two physicians convicted in 2024 based on retrospective assessment of patient mental capacity, despite organisational protocols; demonstrates criminal liability risk
- Professional prohibition removed from medical code (2021) but convictions show this provides inadequate protection
Read the full Germany report →
4 United States US 3.0/5 Moderate The United States operates a decentralized legal framework where 12 states plus Washington D.C. have established comprehensive legal frameworks for medical aid in dying with clear statutory protections, well-defined p... Full report
The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
- 13 jurisdictions (12 states + D.C.) have legalized medical aid in dying as of late 2025, with Oregon's Death with Dignity Act (1994) serving as the model for subsequent legislation
- Only Oregon and Vermont accept non-resident patients following their 2023 removal of residency requirements, while the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld New Jersey's residency requirement in December 2025
- 40 states affirmatively prohibit assisted suicide and impose criminal penalties, while the federal Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997 prohibits use of Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal funds
- Strong legal protections exist where MAID is legal: criminal and civil immunity for physicians, patients, and others acting in good faith compliance, with two independent physicians required to verify diagnosis and prognosis
- Robust legal precedents support state authority (Washington v. Glucksberg, 1997) and protect physicians from federal prosecution (Gonzales v. Oregon, 2006), but interstate travel creates legal uncertainty for family members assisting patients
Read the full United States report →
5 Thailand TH 2.0/5 Poor Thailand's legal framework on assisted dying is highly restrictive. Active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide remain explicitly illegal under Thai criminal law with potential murder charges and serious penaltie... Full report
The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
- Active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are prohibited under Thai Penal Code with criminal penalties including potential death penalty or life imprisonment
- Section 12 of National Health Act B.E. 2550 (2007) permits only passive withdrawal of treatment through living wills, not active assisted dying
- 2015 Supreme Administrative Court Decision Red No. ฟ.11/2558 upheld living wills while explicitly distinguishing them from illegal euthanasia
- No legal framework exists for physician-assisted suicide or active euthanasia for residents or medical tourists
- Documented case of Thai man traveling to Switzerland for voluntary euthanasia illustrates that active assisted dying services are unavailable in Thailand
Read the full Thailand report →
6 South Korea KR 2.0/5 Poor South Korea maintains a highly restrictive legal framework that permits only passive euthanasia (withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment) for patients in the dying process, while active euthanasia and physician-assist... Full report
The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
- Only permits withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for patients in the dying process (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ventilator, hemodialysis)
- Articles 252-253 of Criminal Act explicitly criminalize active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide with up to 3 years imprisonment and/or 30 million won fines
- Report notes significant confusion distinguishing between terminal stage and dying process definitions that creates legal uncertainty
- Companions and family members face criminal prosecution for aiding suicide if they assist patients traveling abroad for assisted dying services
- 2004 Supreme Court case convicted two physicians of aiding and abetting homicide for withdrawing life support, establishing hostile judicial precedent
Read the full South Korea report →
7 India IN 2.0/5 Poor India maintains a highly restrictive legal framework that explicitly prohibits active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide under criminal law (BNS Sections 100-105 and 108), with penalties including life imprison... Full report
The evidence behind this score 7 cited points
- Active euthanasia prohibited under BNS Sections 100, 101, 105 with life imprisonment penalties for murder (Section 302 equivalent)
- Physician-assisted suicide prohibited under BNS Section 108 (abetment to suicide)
- Only passive euthanasia permitted under Supreme Court judgments (Common Cause 2018, 2023 order) with restrictive eligibility: terminally ill or permanent vegetative state patients only
- No parliamentary legislation governing assisted dying; framework based entirely on judicial pronouncements creating legal uncertainty
- Providers face legal uncertainty and scrutiny: report notes 'experts stating that the move may put doctors under undue stress and expose them to legal scrutiny'
- Complex procedural requirements for passive euthanasia: living will in writing, two witnesses, notary/gazetted officer attestation, medical board approvals
- No medical tourism pathway: 'India is not a destination for medical tourism seeking assisted dying services, as only passive withdrawal of life support is legally available under strict circumstances'
Read the full India report →
8 Mexico MX 1.0/5 Poor Mexico explicitly prohibits assisted dying and physician-assisted suicide under federal law (Federal Penal Code Article 312 and General Health Law Article 166 bis 21) with severe criminal penalties of 1–12 years impri... Full report
The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
- Federal Penal Code Article 312 criminalizes assistance in suicide (1–5 years imprisonment) and direct participation in death (4–12 years imprisonment)
- General Health Law Article 166 bis 21 explicitly prohibits euthanasia and assisted suicide
- No jurisdiction in Mexico currently permits active euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide
- 19 states have adopted constitutional amendments protecting the right to life "from conception until natural death," creating barriers to any future euthanasia legislation
- Healthcare providers face criminal liability with no legal immunity for active assisted dying; recent criminal enforcement against pentobarbital distribution networks demonstrates active prohibition of informal medical tourism pathways
Read the full Mexico report →
9 Malaysia MY 1.0/5 Poor Malaysia maintains an absolute prohibition on all forms of assisted dying under the Penal Code, with no statutory framework permitting euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. Active euthanasia is criminalized as mur... Full report
The evidence behind this score 7 cited points
- Penal Code Act 574 Sections 299-306 explicitly prohibit active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide with criminal penalties ranging from ten years imprisonment to death penalty
- No statutory framework permitting assisted dying in any form; legal framework is entirely prohibitive
- Zero legal immunity for healthcare providers; physicians face same criminal liability as any person (potential death penalty for active euthanasia, ten years for abetment of suicide)
- Passive euthanasia occupies legal gray zone with no statute explicitly permitting or prohibiting treatment withdrawal, creating legal uncertainty
- 97th Muzakarah Fatwa (2011) declares all forms of euthanasia haram, reflecting unified opposition from religious authorities, medical professional bodies, and criminal law
- No reported prosecutions of healthcare providers for euthanasia, reflecting absence of any organized assisted dying practice rather than legal tolerance
- Medical tourism for assisted dying is effectively impossible; no legal provision accommodates foreign nationals seeking assistance
Read the full Malaysia report →
10 Poland PL 1.0/5 Poor Poland maintains one of Europe's most restrictive legal frameworks on assisted dying, with both active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide explicitly criminalized under Articles 150-151 of the 1997 Penal Code, c... Full report
The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
- Articles 150-151 of the Polish Penal Code explicitly criminalize euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide with sentences of 3 months to 5 years imprisonment
- Polish Constitution Article 38 mandates legal protection of life for everyone, interpreted by Constitutional Tribunal as constitutional prohibition on euthanasia legislation
- Medical Ethics Code Article 32 (2024) explicitly forbids physicians from applying euthanasia or assisting a patient to commit suicide
- No legal protections exist for healthcare providers who participate; physicians face both criminal prosecution and professional disciplinary action
- 31 documented prosecutions for euthanasia-related offenses between 2007-2012 demonstrate active criminal enforcement of prohibitions
Read the full Poland report →
11 Singapore SG 1.0/5 Poor Singapore explicitly prohibits assisted dying under the Penal Code with severe criminal penalties including potential death penalty for murder charges and up to 10 years imprisonment for abetment of suicide, with no m... Full report
The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
- Penal Code Section 306 criminalizes abetment of suicide with imprisonment up to 10 years for competent adult victims; Section 305 provides death penalty for minors or incapacitated persons
- Active euthanasia by physicians constitutes murder (Section 302) or culpable homicide (Section 304), both carrying death penalty or up to 20 years imprisonment
- September 2024 conviction of Alverna Cher Sheue Pin under Section 306 for assisting ex-boyfriend's death by nitrogen gas; sentenced to 6 years and 2 months imprisonment, demonstrating active prosecution
- Advance Medical Directive Act 1996 permits only passive refusal of extraordinary life-sustaining treatment when patient is terminally ill and unconscious; explicitly does not authorize euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide
- No constitutional right to die recognized by Singapore courts; no legislative reform pending or under governmental consideration as of mid-2026
Read the full Singapore report →
12 Turkey TR 1.0/5 Poor Turkey explicitly prohibits all forms of assisted dying under law. Active euthanasia is prosecuted as intentional homicide with life imprisonment (Turkish Penal Code Article 81), assisted suicide carries 2-10 years im... Full report
The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
- Patient Rights Regulation Article 13 explicitly states: Euthanasia is prohibited; the right to life cannot be waived for medical reasons or by any means whatsoever
- Turkish Penal Code Article 81: A person who intentionally kills a human being shall be sentenced to life imprisonment
- Turkish Penal Code Article 84: Any person who assists in suicide is sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two to five years (or 4-10 years if death occurs)
- Turkish Constitution Article 17 protects the right to life as the constitutional foundation for euthanasia prohibitions
- Both active and passive euthanasia remain unlawful; even the right to refuse treatment is limited if it would lead to death
Read the full Turkey report →
13 Jordan JO 1.0/5 Poor Jordan maintains an absolute legal prohibition on assisted dying under the Medical and Health Liability Law No. 25 of 2018 (Article 17) and criminal homicide provisions (Penal Code Articles 326–328), with penalties ra... Full report
The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
- Medical and Health Liability Law No. 25 of 2018, Article 17 explicitly prohibits 'the termination of life irrespective of the reasons, even if requested by the patient or their guardians'
- Penal Code No. 16 of 1960, Articles 326–328 impose 15 years hard labour for willful killing and death penalty for premeditated murder, with no legal exception for assisted dying
- 2022 Penal Code amendment criminalized public suicide attempts with six months imprisonment and/or 100 JD fine, signalling legislative movement toward stricter enforcement
- Criminal court sentenced five health officials to three years imprisonment in 2021 for patient deaths from oxygen supply failure, demonstrating active judicial enforcement of life-protection provisions
- No form of assisted dying is legally permitted (active, passive, voluntary, or non-voluntary), and no provisions exist for medical tourism access
Read the full Jordan report →
14 Brazil BR 1.0/5 Poor Brazil maintains explicit criminal prohibition of both active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide under Articles 121 and 122 of the 1940 Penal Code, with sentences of 6–20 years for homicide and 2–6 years for as... Full report
The evidence behind this score 6 cited points
- Article 121 of the Penal Code criminalizes euthanasia as homicide with 6–20 years imprisonment, potentially reduced 1/6–1/3 under privileged homicide provision for compassionate motivation
- Article 122 of the Penal Code criminalizes assisted suicide with 2–6 years imprisonment for completed acts; no exemptions or provider immunities exist
- CFM Resolutions 1805/2006 (orthothanasia) and 1995/2012 (advance directives) are professional regulations, not statutory law, and permit only withdrawal of extraordinary measures for terminal patients
- Reform bill PLS 236/2012 has been stalled in the Senate CCJ since 2012 with no rapporteur assigned; no near-term legislative pathway exists
- Brazil is not a destination for medical tourists seeking assisted dying; the criminal prohibition applies to all persons on Brazilian territory regardless of nationality
- No landmark Supreme Court (STF) or Superior Court of Justice (STJ) decisions support assisted dying rights; the 2024 STF ruling on patient autonomy addressed treatment refusal only
Read the full Brazil report →
15 United Kingdom GB 1.0/5 Poor The United Kingdom maintains an absolute legal prohibition on all forms of assisted dying, with criminal penalties of up to 14 years' imprisonment for assisting suicide and life imprisonment for active euthanasia. No ... Full report
The evidence behind this score 8 cited points
- Suicide Act 1961 Section 2 (as amended by Coroners and Justice Act 2009): makes assisting suicide a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years' imprisonment in England and Wales
- Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 Section 13: mirror prohibition in Northern Ireland with identical 14-year maximum penalty
- Active euthanasia classified as murder or manslaughter (England/Wales/NI) or culpable homicide (Scotland), carrying potential life imprisonment
- No legal protections for healthcare providers; 2014 CPS guidance amendment specifically heightened prosecution risk for medical professionals assisting patients
- Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill failed when Parliament prorogued on 29 April 2026 before House of Lords completion
- Scotland's Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill defeated 69–57 at final Stage 3 vote on 17 March 2026
- Strong legal precedents (R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38, R (Conway) v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] EWCA Civ 1431) consistently upholding the prohibition
- CPS prosecution statistics (2009–2026): 209 cases referred, only 6 successful convictions — low conviction rate reflects prosecutorial discretion but does not decriminalize the conduct
Read the full United Kingdom report →
16 Hungary HU 1.0/5 Poor Hungary explicitly prohibits all active forms of assisted dying under Articles 160 and 162 of Act C of 2012 on the Criminal Code, with homicide penalties of 5-15 years and assisted suicide penalties of 1-5 years, with... Full report
The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
- Articles 160 and 162 of Act C of 2012 on the Criminal Code explicitly prohibit homicide (5-15 years) and assisted suicide (1-5 years) with no medical exception
- No legal immunities or safe-harbor provisions exist for healthcare providers; any physician assisting a patient in dying faces felony prosecution
- Dániel Karsai v. Hungary (ECtHR, 13 June 2024) upheld Hungary's blanket criminal ban and confirmed extraterritorial jurisdiction applies to helpers assisting Hungarian citizens abroad
- Constitutional Court Decision 22/2003 (IV.28) rejected any constitutional right to physician-assisted death
- Only passive euthanasia (refusal/withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment) permitted under Act CLIV of 1997; no active assisted dying framework exists
Read the full Hungary report →
17 Israel IL 1.0/5 Poor Israel explicitly criminalizes both active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide through the Dying Patient Law (2005) Sections 19-20 and the Penal Law (1977) Section 309, with no legal framework permitting any for... Full report
The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
- Dying Patient Law (5766-2005) Sections 19-20 explicitly prohibit active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: 'None of the provisions of the law permit any action...which would assist suicide'
- Penal Law (5737-1977) Section 309 treats death causation broadly, with criminal penalties reaching life imprisonment for murder charges and up to 20 years for other forms of assistance in life termination
- No legal protections for healthcare providers; physicians face criminal prosecution for active euthanasia regardless of patient consent
- No special legal provisions for foreign nationals or medical tourists—the prohibition applies uniformly, with advance directive registry requiring Israeli ID documents
- Shefer v. State of Israel (1993) established strong legal precedent prohibiting active euthanasia under Israeli and Jewish law principles; 2025 Podolsky case explicitly 'circumvents' rather than operates within the law
Read the full Israel report →
18 United Arab Emirates AE 1.0/5 Poor The UAE maintains an absolute and explicit criminal prohibition on assisted dying under Federal Decree-Law No. 4 of 2016, imposing a minimum ten-year prison sentence for mercy killing regardless of patient consent. No... Full report
The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
- Federal Decree-Law No. 4 of 2016 Article 10 explicitly bans mercy killing 'for any reason' with minimum ten-year imprisonment, with no exception for patient consent
- UAE Penal Code Article 335 criminalizes assisting suicide with up to five years detention; general homicide provisions impose life imprisonment for deliberate killing
- Article 11 of the 2016 Medical Liability Law permits only passive non-resuscitation in terminal illness cases via physician consensus; this is physician-driven discretion, not patient rights, and does not constitute assisted dying
- UAE Constitution Article 7 mandates Islamic Sharia as 'a principal source of legislation,' providing constitutional foundation for the prohibition with minimal prospect for reform
- The legal framework creates an absolute barrier to assisted dying medical tourism: no licensed provider can assist without facing criminal prosecution, and family members assisting face up to five years detention
Read the full United Arab Emirates report →
19 Japan JP 1.0/5 Poor Japan explicitly prohibits all forms of assisted dying under Penal Code Articles 199 and 202, with criminal penalties ranging from 6 months to life imprisonment or death. The Supreme Court finalized an 18-year sentenc... Full report
The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
- Penal Code Article 202 criminalizes 'assistance in suicide' and 'consensual homicide' with imprisonment of 6 months to 7 years
- Supreme Court finalized 18-year sentence for Dr. Okubo in June 2025, establishing strong legal precedent against physician-assisted dying even with explicit patient consent
- Osaka High Court (November 2024) ruled Constitution 'does not recognise a right to seek assistance from others to end one's life'
- No statutory framework exists permitting assisted dying; 2012 draft bill was never introduced to the National Diet
- Healthcare providers have zero legal immunity; any participation exposes doctors to criminal prosecution under Articles 199 or 202
Read the full Japan report →

See the full ranking, the 1–5 rubric and the reports →