Switzerland tightens rules on ‘death tourism’ to reduce public costs

Wednesday 23 July 2025 - 17:45

Switzerland is redefining its approach to "death tourism" — a phenomenon involving foreign nationals traveling to the country to access legal assisted suicide. The canton of Solothurn has introduced a controversial yet cost-effective model in collaboration with the suicide-assistance organization Pegasos.

Under this new agreement, individuals coming from abroad to end their lives must now be filmed as they administer the fatal dose themselves. This video evidence, along with other documentation, allows the authorities to bypass standard criminal investigations usually triggered by an assisted suicide.

By transferring the body to the nearby canton of Basel-City for a simplified forensic check, Solothurn avoids deploying law enforcement, prosecutors, or medical examiners. The result: a cost reduction of up to 2000 Swiss francs per case, entirely covered by Pegasos as part of its overall fee of roughly CHF 10,000.

The Solothurn model has gained attention among other cantons burdened by similar investigative expenses. Each year, over 500 foreigners and 1,700 Swiss citizens opt for assisted suicide — a number expected to double by 2035.

Although praised for preserving the dignity and privacy of families, the system raises ethical and legal questions. Pegasos considers the arrangement humane, noting that families no longer face traumatic interruptions from criminal investigations during the farewell process.

Nonetheless, many Swiss prosecutors remain hesitant. Current federal laws require investigation in cases of "non-natural death," even though assisted suicide, when not selfishly motivated, is legal. Organizations like Exit and Lifecircle argue for clearer recognition of assisted suicide as a distinct death category — as in Belgium, where it is legally classified as "natural death" under insurance-friendly regulations.

Whether Solothurn's model becomes the national standard remains uncertain. For now, it stands as a pragmatic yet divisive solution in a country still struggling to harmonize ethical practices and legal norms in end-of-life care.