"Suicide Tourism" in the U.S.: Undoing the Harmful Impact of this Mischaracterization of Medical Aid in Dying

Abstract: As more U.S. states consider legalizing Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) and dropping residency requirements, there is an increasing misuse of the term “suicide tourism” to describe terminally ill patients who travel across states, to Vermont and Oregon, to access MAiD within the U.S. Traditionally, "suicide tourism" has referred to individuals traveling internationally—most notably to Switzerland—to seek assisted suicide in the absence of a terminal diagnosis. However, its use in the U.S. context is both misleading and harmful, falsely equating MAiD with impulsive suicide and obstructing policy progress.
This paper critically examines how the misuse of "suicide tourism" distorts public discourse, influences legislative restrictions, and stigmatizes patients who are already dying and seeking a medically regulated process to hasten an inevitable, imminent death. Unlike traditional "suicide tourists," MAiD patients undergo strict medical screening, are of sound mind, and face an unavoidable terminal prognosis of less than six months. Yet, this mischaracterization has led to residency requirements and legislative hesitation, forcing patients to endure unnecessary suffering.
By analyzing the ethical, medical, and policy consequences of this rhetoric, this paper argues for a reframing of language in MAiD debates before more states either restrict access or succumb to misinformation-driven opposition. Clear, accurate terminology is essential to protect patient autonomy, guide responsible legislation, and prevent stigma from obstructing end-of-life care. Bioethicists, policymakers, and medical professionals must take a proactive role in challenging this narrative to ensure dignity in dying is not compromised by linguistic manipulation.

Keywords: misrepresentation of MAiD in 'Suicide Tourism', end of life legislative ethics, appropriate framing of medical aid in dying