It’s time for a mature debate on euthanasia

The British parliament has approved a Bill that makes it possible for someone who is terminally ill to choose to die. The assisted dying Bill is still two to three years away from becoming law but it has cleared a significant parliamentary hurdle. 

Before delving into the ethical controversies that accompanied the Bill, this leader cannot but comment positively on the manner by which British members of parliament conducted the debate. It was an admirable exercise that saw MPs engage in a respectful debate that cut across party lines. Views in favour and against were expressed with utmost sobriety that recognised the sensitive and deeply personal nature of the subject. 

With the Maltese government having an electoral mandate to kick off a meaningful discussion on the introduction of euthanasia, this leader augurs that Maltese MPs can engage in a mature debate like that seen in the British parliament. 

Death is never an easy subject to deal with because it evokes strong human emotions. Every person has a story to tell, involving someone they loved or knew, who may have died following a long illness. And the situation only gets more complicated when it deals with persons who know their end is near or fast approaching and are going through a great deal of suffering. The emotions involved do not only pertain to the patient but also those close to them. Plentiful considerations are at stake and they do not only involve the individual passing through the ordeal but also family members and society. 

This is why any debate on euthanasia and assisted dying cannot be reduced to a mere good-bad, yes-no argument. 

The Bill approved by the British parliament is very limited in scope. People who are suffering from a degenerative illness will be ineligible for assisted dying because they are not considered terminally ill patients. In this sense the UK proposal is different from other laws on euthanasia that are in force in a few other countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, which have a wider scope. 

The UK Bill is premised on the consideration that a person should be able to choose to end their suffering rather than wait for the terminal illness to consume them slowly and painfully. This is a strong compassionate argument in favour of individual choice when physical and mental suffering start chipping away at human dignity. 

This leader believes people should have a right to choose how they go if they are diagnosed with a terminal illness or are suffering from a degenerative disease that gradually erodes their physical and mental capabilities. 

This does not mean that good palliative care should be neglected. Indeed, it is the State’s obligation to ensure that palliative care is available on the national health service to ensure a dignified ending to patients whose days are counted. 

But just as the right to dignified care for those who want to live until their natural end should be safeguarded and strengthened, so should the right of those who wish to end their pain by choosing when to depart be respected. 

Nonetheless, this leader is conscious of the challenges and ethical dilemmas associated with euthanasia and assisted dying. The law must contain safeguards to prevent abuse, especially by next of kin, who may have a selfish interest to see their parent or relative die. The law must also include safeguards against decisions made by the patient on the spur of the moment when great physical or mental pain can cloud judgement. There are other considerations to be made, which is why the law must ensure that an individual’s choice is informed, made freely and without undue pressure. 

This leader believes that a parliamentary select committee should be created, chaired by a government backbencher and with members from both sides of the House. The government MPs should not be ministers. The committee should have a brief to hear Maltese and foreign experts, and interested parties, with a view to draw up a report outlining the different views in favour or against euthanasia, charting where political consensus is possible, the ethical considerations involved and making recommendations to government on how best to proceed. The report should be finalised within nine months and serve as a tool for government to draw up a draft Bill that will then be tabled in parliament. 

A similar exercise was carried out in 2011 when a select committee was created to draw up a report on in-vitro fertilisation and the ethical considerations surrounding several contentious issues. Unfortunately, the government at the time failed to act in a meaningful way on the report’s recommendations and conclusions but the current Labour government should have no qualms moving forward with a draft Bill on euthanasia after it receives the report, given it already has an electoral mandate.