“Can we make sure that before a patient asks to be euthanised, we have covered everything?”

Sammut said that at its crux, euthanasia is killing a patient. He did not imply any moral assessment based on that but emphasised that this is a serious matter with irreversible implications.

He stressed that before a patient makes such a decision, they should be offered every possible form of medication, technology, and support to help them decide properly.

“If everything hasn’t been offered or if these elements aren’t working together properly, a patient’s decision can switch.”

According to Sammut, palliative care in Malta lacks proper infrastructure, trained personnel, access to essential end-of-life medications, and support services like psychological care and home assistance.

Jumping to euthanasia before fixing these essential problems is like “telling a baby to run before they can sit up”.

However, all of this does not mean that the union is against or in favour of euthanasia – such a stance will take some time to come to.

“We take this issue extremely seriously and we will not have any knee-jerk reactions to it.”

Sammut reminded that doctors are the profession most involved in the decision-making process for assisted voluntary euthanasia, and he asked the public to take a moment of reflection and put themselves in a doctor’s shoes.

“I want you to imagine going near a patient and administering the medication that will euthanise the patient. I think then you’ll understand why the medical profession takes this issue extremely seriously and does not rush a reaction.”

According to the government’s public consultation, the doctor must provide the patient with the fatal dose and be present while the individual ultimately injects or ingests it themselves.

Speaking in a personal capacity – and not on behalf of MAM – Sammut pointed out some other areas for improvement within the public consultation, agreeing that this is a first draft and holes in the document are expected.

One of them is the requirement of having six months left to live. He explained that while the progression of some conditions can be calculated relatively accurately, others can’t.

“On the other hand, there are diagnoses that are known to take much longer than six months and in that case, why should people have to suffer for much longer?” he asked, arguing that this could amount to discrimination.

Sammut even commented on conscientious objection, saying that while a doctor may refuse and refer the case to someone else – they still have the responsibility on their shoulders because the procedure is now going to be done in part, thanks to this referral.

“So as you see, there are many arguments and it’s good that they surface. People now have the opportunity to talk about the issue and we have the opportunity to use this and push the government to improve palliative care.”

Full interview out soon.