On November 23, Slovenia said no to euthanasia. With 53% of voters voting against and 46% in favor, Slovenians rejected a law that would have allowed terminally ill patients to receive assistance in ending their lives. This was not a narrow margin due to abstentions: Turnout reached nearly 41%, with those voting against representing over 20% of the 1.7 million eligible voters, as required by Slovenia’s strict electoral rules. The result is all the more significant considering that just a year ago, in 2024, a non-binding referendum had yielded the opposite result, prompting Parliament to approve the law last July. But something changed. After opponents led by conservative activist Aleš Primc collected over 40,000 signatures, a second referendum on the controversial issue was called.

The Mobilization That Made the Difference

“Compassion won,” declared Primc when the results were announced. These words sounded like a provocation to those who presented euthanasia as the only possible form of compassion for those who suffer. The leader of Voice for Children and Families, the organization that spearheaded the “no” campaign, added that Slovenia had rejected “the government’s health, pension, and social reform based on death by poisoning.”

Anthropologist Vesna Vuk Godina has identified the root of this victory: The outcome was decided by the best-organized minority of Slovenians, the politically right-wing, a well-organized core that responded in a disciplined manner to the demands of its political leaders and the Catholic Church. It is a lesson in effectiveness that should give pause to those in Italy and elsewhere in the West who continue to lament the advance of the “culture of death” without building concrete alternatives and widespread mobilizations.

What Did the Rejected Law Provide?

The rejected legislation would have allowed mentally conscious people with no hope of recovery or suffering from unbearable pain to access euthanasia, with patients administering the lethal drug themselves after approval from two doctors and a period of consultation. The law explicitly excluded people with mental illnesses. Supporters, including Prime Minister Robert Golob’s Liberal government, presented the measure as an affirmation of individual autonomy and dignity. But therein lies the semantic deception: passing off as “dignity” what is actually a radical denial of the value of human life.

The Reasons for the No: Constitution and Dignity

Opponents raised both legal and ethical objections. Voice for Children and Families argued that the law violated Article 17 of the Slovenian Constitution, which declares human life inviolable. They called instead for greater commitment to palliative care.

The Slovenian Catholic Church has been a protagonist in this battle. The Bishop of Novo Mesto, Andrej Saje, president of the Bishops’ Conference, said the result means that “we have chosen respect for human dignity and the path of protecting life in all its stages, up to and including natural death. The referendum campaign has united us. It has awakened our communities and individuals.” In numerous parishes and religious communities, “we have rediscovered the importance of fundamental existential issues such as life, illness, suffering, care of the sick, and death. It was precious to have acted united and together in defense of life. This debate has encouraged us to reflect on the meaning of human vulnerability and how to responsibly accompany a person through trials, in which faith in God has an irreplaceable place.”

Countering a European Trend

The Slovenian victory represents an exception in a Europe racing toward the legalization of euthanasia. In October 2024, the Irish Parliament expressed support for euthanasia legislation. In May 2025, the French National Assembly voted in favor of a bill to guarantee the right to euthanasia for terminally ill patients. In June 2025, the British House of Commons narrowly approved a bill on assisted suicide. Other European countries, such as Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, already permit euthanasia.

A striking example of this dangerous path is the double suicide of the Kessler twins (see here), which was hailed as a given by Europe’s cultural elite. The mainstream media glossed over the horrific act, gently losing themselves amidst praise for their “dignified” gesture and their historic long legs.

Against this backdrop, Slovenia has demonstrated that reversing the trend is possible. But it requires courage, organization, and a local Church that, on the one hand, is unafraid to take sides and, on the other, must uproot the roots of the evil cultural plants that are infesting the Lord’s vineyard and confusing the faithful.

Political Consequences

The referendum result means the Slovenian parliament will not be able to vote again on a bill addressing the same issue for at least the next 12 months. This moratorium provides valuable time to strengthen palliative care and build a credible alternative.

The daily newspaper Dnevnik saw the referendum result as a general shift toward conservatism in a Slovenian society that had until now been predominantly liberal or social democratic in terms of cultural identity, placing the vote in the context of broader political changes in Europe and the country.

A Warning to Italy

And what about Italy? The discussion there about the end of life continues amid hesitation, awkward silences, and a local church whose pastors too often seem more concerned with avoiding disruption than with bearing witness to the truth. Not to mention the President of the Italian Episcopal Conference, Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, who, during a speech at the University of Florence, commenting on the Tuscan regional law on assisted suicide, even supported a national law. “It makes little sense for regional solutions to exist; we need a national directive,” said Cardinal Zuppi.

While in Slovenia the bishops were able to mobilize communities and lead a cultural rather than political battle, Italy is witnessing a progressive wavering of ecclesiastical leadership in the face of pressure to legalize assisted suicide, the step before euthanasia.

The Slovenian lesson is clear: When the Church is united, when it does not hide behind diplomatic ambiguities, when it builds alliances with principled associations and medical institutions, it can still win seemingly lost battles. Bishop Saje has pointed the way: to commit more to developing and making quality palliative care accessible, strengthening the healthcare system, easing the burden on healthcare workers, and creating better conditions for caring for the most vulnerable.

The Italian and other local churches in the West should rediscover the culture of life and openly and unambiguously fight the culture of death.

A Victory to Defend

Despite the defeat, euthanasia supporters in Slovenia have already announced their intention to return to the battle. Prime Minister Golob himself, while acknowledging the result, declared that “the challenge we face remains” because “it is not a political issue, but has always been a question of dignity, human rights, and individual choice.” This is the deceptive language that passes off death as freedom, suicide as dignity, abandonment as compassion. The real cultural challenge is to unmask this narrative and propose an alternative based on solidarity, support, and care until the last breath of natural death.

Slovenia has shown that the culture of life can still prevail. But only if one has the courage to fight, to organize, and to resist the emotional blackmail of those who present euthanasia as the only truly humane and dignified solution to suffering.

Italy and other countries should take notes, observe, and act — before it’s too late.