Colorado’s Assisted Suicide Reports Show Incomplete Medical Data, Lack of Mental Health Evaluations

Public health data from Colorado shows that patients approved for assisted suicide likely are not being screened by mental health experts, and the assisted suicide reports that doctors submit to the State are sometimes incomplete.

Colorado legalized assisted suicide under its 2016 End-of-Life Options Act. Since then, the State has recorded nearly 2,600 prescriptions for lethal drugs under the law.

Assisted suicide’s supporters have claimed the law contains strong safeguards to protect vulnerable patients, but statistical data from the State of Colorado raises questions about whether that really is the case.

For example, last year 580 patients were approved for assisted suicide in Colorado. Out of all of those patients, only one reportedly was referred to a mental health professional for evaluation. That’s due in part to the fact that mental health evaluations are optional in Colorado. Under the End-of-Life Options Act, mental health referrals typically are limited to cases where the physician prescribing the drugs has doubts about the patient’s decision-making ability. Doctors are not required to get a mental health professional’s opinion about whether the patient may be suffering from mental illness.

It’s very troubling that doctors would let patients end their lives via assisted suicide without referring them to mental health professionals first. But it is also troubling that official reports from Colorado show some of those doctors may be submitting incomplete patient data to the State when they fill prescriptions for assisted suicide.

For example, Colorado law says the patient’s primary medical provider must consult with a second provider to verify that the patient’s condition is terminal and to help ensure the patient is not being coerced into requesting assisted suicide. Patients must also record their request for assisted suicide in writing.

All of this information is supposed to go to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment when providers write prescriptions for assisted suicide.

But statistical data shows that since 2017, there have been at least 88 cases in which public health officials did not receive copies of the patient’s written request for assisted suicide. There were also 126 cases in which the paperwork did not include documentation from a secondary provider who reviewed the patient’s case.

The 2025 assisted suicide report from Colorado’s Department of Public Health explains these gaps in the data by saying:

“While reporting of the required documentation (including prescribing forms, patients’ written requests, consulting providers’ written confirmations, and mental health provider confirmation when applicable) may be incomplete, attending/prescribing forms received contained providers’ signed attestations that all requirements of the Colorado End-of-Life Options Act have been met, and that required documentation is complete and contained in patients’ records. Efforts continue to educate health care providers about reporting requirements.”

In other words, Colorado’s public health officials will accept incomplete records as long as doctors say they are following the law.

But without proper oversight, there really is no way to know if doctors are following state law.

For example, a 2024 peer-reviewed article found that people with eating disorders like anorexia may sometimes be approved for assisted suicide in Colorado.

A case study published in 2022 revealed a Colorado doctor specializing in anorexia treatment helped patients obtain assisted suicide.

Cases like these are deeply concerning.

But even with government oversight, assisted suicide is still a problem.

Assisted suicide fundamentally changes the doctor-patient relationship from healing to killing.

Experts say that in some places where assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal, palliative care specialists are being driven to quit practicing medicine. That hurts everyone.

Once doctors and policymakers decide some lives are not worth living, it’s practically impossible to choose where to draw the line on assisted suicide.

In parts of the U.S. where assisted suicide is legal, insurance companies have refused to pay for patients’ medical care, but have offered to cover assisted suicide drugs.

Patients in Europe and Canada reportedly have been denied care or actively euthanized as a result of assisted suicide laws.

Next year, Canada could expand assisted suicide to include people suffering solely from mental health conditions like depression or personality disorders.

All of this underscores why Family Council has strongly opposed assisted suicide in Arkansas. In 2019 and 2021, Arkansas lawmakers wisely rejected very bad end-of-life laws that were flawed and fundamentally disrespected the right to life. Family Council worked closely with our friends in the legislature to stop those proposals.

Being pro-life means believing innocent human life is sacred from conception until natural death.

Just like abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide violate the sanctity of innocent human life.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

Here are Two Ways to Help Oppose Chemical Abortion in Arkansas

Family Council is encouraging everyone to take two simple steps to help oppose chemical abortion drugs in Arkansas.

The first is to send a message asking Congress to support the Safeguarding Women from Chemical Abortion Act.

The second is to ask the federal government to stop letting abortionists deliver abortion drugs through the mail.

Here is a little more information:

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. As a result, abortion is prohibited in Arkansas except to save the life of the mother, and it is against the law to mail abortion drugs into the state.

But under President Biden, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration adopted rules that let abortionists send abortion drugs like mifepristone through the mail.

During that time, pro-abortion states also enacted “shield laws” to prevent abortionists from being held accountable when they mail abortion drugs into states like Arkansas.

To make matters worse, the U.S. Department of Justice has also opposed federal lawsuits from pro-lifers who want to stop mail-order abortion in their states.

All of this has created a dangerous industry of abortion-by-mail both in Arkansas and across the nation.

The Safeguarding Women from Chemical Abortion Act by Senator Josh Hawley (MO) and Representative Diana Harshbarger (TN) would withdraw the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. This would remove the abortion drug from the market nationwide.

The bill would also provide a private right of action letting women sue the drug’s manufacturers if they are harmed by the abortion drug.

You can ask your congressmen and senators to co-sponsor the Safeguarding Women from Chemical Abortion Act by clicking here.

Passing and enforcing the Safeguarding Women from Chemical Abortion Act could take several months. That’s why we are also asking Arkansans to contact their leaders in Washington, D.C., and urge them to reverse the federal government’s policy that permits mail-order abortion.

Pro-lifers can ask Congress and the Trump Administration to reverse the FDA’s mail-order abortion policy by visiting abortioncrimebymail.com today.

Abortion drugs like mifepristone are dangerous. These drugs hurt women, and they kill unborn children.

Research from the Ethics and Public Policy Center shows 11% of women experience serious health complications from abortion pills — including sepsis, infection, and life-threatening hemorrhage.

These drugs should not be available at all — much less through the mail without an in-person visit with a doctor.

Our federal government needs to recognize how serious this issue is and take immediate steps to protect Americans from these abortion drugs. That is why we hope all Arkansans will contact their leaders today. Ask them to support the Safeguarding Women from Chemical Abortion Act and reverse the FDA’s mail-order abortion policy.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.