Conservatives—among whom I would count myself in this context—have long warned against unconsidered changes to social norms, cautioning that such innovations may carry risks we do not fully understand. When the consequences of a change cannot be clearly foreseen, prudence is not only justified; it is necessary.
This is a sound and defensible position. Yet it follows, logically, that when a given innovation is nevertheless adopted, we ought to revisit it after some years and ask a simple question: did the predicted harms materialize, or did they not? Experience, not speculation, should be the standard by which we judge what is to be retained and what is to be reconsidered.
Take registered partnerships. They have not produced any significant damage—neither to family life, nor to public morality, nor to the broader social order. Conservatives should be willing to acknowledge as much, even if they find such arrangements personally objectionable and insist, rightly, on their freedom to say so.
The question of children raised by same-sex couples—or by more complex household arrangements—has, by contrast, raised some concerns. The evidence here is mixed, and the situation remains, at best, unclear.
With euthanasia, however, we see something closer to the scenario conservatives feared. In at least some cases, there are signs of pressure—pressure that approaches what could reasonably be described as involuntary euthanasia. In other instances, individuals suffering from temporary psychological distress are being led toward irreversible decisions. Anyone who has experienced depression knows how powerfully it can distort one’s sense of the future. Precisely for that reason, experts ought to exercise the utmost caution, and in such cases, they ought not to recommend ending a life—especially when the person in question is young and has yet to live through the possibilities of recovery and renewal. The existing safeguards appear insufficient, and it is not at all clear that a fully reliable system of safeguards can be devised.
Then there is the matter of gender transition—particularly in cases involving young girls, where irreversible medical interventions, including mastectomies and hormone treatments, are undertaken. For some, the result is not relief but deepened psychological distress, even to the point of suicidal ideation, which in turn raises the specter of euthanasia.
Is there a general rule that would allow us to distinguish, in advance, between changes that are likely to end in trouble and those that can be safely tolerated? At present, no such rule is evident. For now, we are left, once again, to wait on the verdict of lived experience.