Hidden Dangers: Transparency Fades in Assisted Suicide Law

Silver casket with red rose arrangement on top.

Washington state’s decision to stop releasing public reports on assisted suicide deaths has left families, doctors, and watchdogs in the dark—prompting outrage over government secrecy and the erosion of public oversight.

At a Glance

Washington state will no longer publish detailed reports on assisted suicide deaths, ending a transparency requirement that’s been in place for over a decade.
New law, Senate Bill 5179, expands access to lethal drugs and removes previously mandated safeguards and reporting requirements.
Advocacy groups and medical experts warn that a lack of public data will hinder oversight, accountability, and informed debate.
Opponents argue the move undermines public trust and opens the door to abuse, while supporters claim it protects patient privacy and autonomy.

Washington Shuts Down Public Reporting on Assisted Suicide Deaths

Washington’s Department of Health will no longer release annual public reports on deaths caused by assisted suicide, a sharp departure from past practice. This decision comes on the heels of Senate Bill 5179, which loosened restrictions on assisted suicide and expanded access to lethal drugs for terminally ill adults. For years, these reports provided the only window into how the law was working—tracking complications, failed deaths, and whether eligible patients actually used the medication. Now, as the state’s program grows and safeguards erode, the public is being told to trust the system without seeing any of the data.

Washington has STOPPED publishing data on assisted suicide due to “budget cuts.” This means no more public record of who dies, how they die, or whether complications occurred.

“This isn’t just a data issue; it’s a question of life and death.”https://t.co/Whiy7ty278

— LifeSiteNews (@LifeSite) July 28, 2025

This move has infuriated advocates for transparency, disability rights groups, and families who worry about the lack of oversight. Critics point out that after years of rising prescriptions and deaths, Washington’s leaders have chosen to close the books on the only mechanism for public accountability. There’s a reason why the data matters: annual reports previously revealed how many patients suffered complications like regurgitation, prolonged dying, or failed to die at all. Scrapping public reporting erases any chance to monitor abuses, medical errors, or troubling trends.

Expansion of Assisted Suicide Access and Erosion of Safeguards

Washington’s assisted suicide law, modeled after Oregon’s, was sold to voters as a tightly regulated, transparent system. The law’s original promises included strict eligibility criteria, public reporting, and oversight. That’s now a thing of the past. Senate Bill 5179, passed in 2023, stripped away waiting periods and residency requirements, making it easier than ever to obtain lethal prescriptions. In 2021 alone, 400 prescriptions were written and 291 deaths were reported—numbers that have only increased with the new law. Yet, as access is broadened, the state is simultaneously eliminating the ability to track who is using the law, who is dying, and whether anyone is being coerced or harmed.

Supporters of the changes claim that detailed reporting is burdensome for doctors and infringes on patient privacy. But medical experts, bioethicists, and oversight groups warn that without transparent data, abuses will go unnoticed. They point to evidence that most patients receive no mental health evaluation before being prescribed lethal drugs—a reality that is only discovered because of the now-vanished reports. Without public scrutiny, how can anyone be sure the law isn’t being misused or that vulnerable people aren’t falling through the cracks?

Transparency, Accountability, and the Public’s Right to Know

The decision to end public reporting has sparked a fierce debate over transparency and government accountability. Opposition groups—including the Charlotte Lozier Institute and disability rights advocates—have accused state officials of shutting down oversight right as the system becomes more permissive and less accountable. Their argument is simple: if the state believes its assisted suicide program is safe and ethical, why hide the details from the very people it claims to serve?

Washington’s decision stands in stark contrast to the values of open government and public oversight. For a decade, the state’s reports have informed medical practice, legislative debate, and public opinion. Removing them now—just as the law expands and safeguards are stripped away—raises serious questions about what officials don’t want the public to see. As data vanishes, so too does the ability to hold anyone accountable for mistakes, abuses, or systemic failures. The public is left to take the government’s word for it, all while the real costs and consequences remain hidden.