Krista Kafer’s recent column (“Plaintiffs right to challenge Colorado’s Aid in Dying law,” Denver Post, July 7, 2025) expresses a deeply personal concern about the future of vulnerable individuals facing depression or chronic illness. While her compassion is evident, some of the claims in her piece mischaracterize the scope and safeguards of Colorado’s Medical Aid in Dying law.
First, the law is explicit on a fundamental point: Medical aid in dying is not assisted suicide, nor is it euthanasia. Under Colorado Revised Statutes §25-48-103, the cause of death is legally recognized as the underlying terminal illness. The statute also provides that actions taken in accordance with the law do not constitute suicide or euthanasia.
Second, Colorado’s law does not permit individuals with chronic illness or mental health conditions—such as depression—to access medical aid in dying unless they also have a terminal diagnosis with a life expectancy of six months or less, as confirmed by two independent physicians. This means individuals with treatable psychiatric conditions, no matter how severe, are not eligible.
Kafer draws a parallel to developments in Canada and some European countries, where access has broadened beyond terminal illness. That is not the case in Colorado. Our law includes strong, proven safeguards specifically designed to avoid the so-called “slippery slope.” Among these are:
- Multiple attestations of voluntary and informed consent
- Rigorous confirmation of decisional capacity by two physicians
- Mandatory mental health evaluation if there is any concern about impaired judgment
- Clear prohibition of coercion
To date, there is no evidence in Colorado or other states with similar laws that individuals are being coerced, misdiagnosed, or steered away from life-affirming care. In fact, the opposite is true: Patients pursuing aid in dying overwhelmingly express a desire to live, but face relentless decline despite every effort.
As for the suggestion that doctors “might offer suicide instead of treatment,” the law not only prohibits such a practice—it actively requires physicians to discuss all treatment options, including hospice and palliative care. The claim that providers are not required to screen for serious mental illness is also inaccurate. The law requires referral for mental health evaluation if there’s any indication of impaired judgment due to a psychiatric or psychological disorder.
These built-in protections have worked. Colorado’s experience, like that of other states with similar laws, shows a responsible, compassionate, and careful process—not a dangerous slope.
We can all agree that individuals with disabilities or chronic illness deserve protection and support. But conflating responsible end-of-life care with neglect or coercion misrepresents the law and disrespects the autonomy of terminally ill individuals seeking relief.