Autonomy Means Choice: Why Euthanasia Should Be a Personal Decision
With the Life Network Foundation presenting over 12,700 submissions against euthanasia through its “Oqtol L-Uġigh Mhux Lili” campaign, I can’t help but wonder: Why is it that some people feel such a strong need to oppose choices they’d never make themselves – especially when those choices don’t infringe on their own autonomy?
The NGO dedicates the majority of its time to stopping women from accessing abortion, and now, with euthanasia on the table, it has taken it upon itself to try to block it too.
Pro-life advocates often justify their position by saying that unborn babies have no voice. But people seeking euthanasia do have a voice – so why try to speak over them? Why campaign against something that doesn’t affect your own life, yet could offer relief to those with chronic illnesses or just months left to live in pain? Choosing to die on one’s own terms isn’t about convenience. It’s about dignity.
Yes, a natural death may align with your morals because no other human intervenes – but just because that’s your belief doesn’t mean it should apply to everyone.
Do you know what it feels like to live with chronic unrelenting pain? Or to be told you only have months left, knowing those final days will be filled with suffering and decline? If not, and even if you do, you don’t have the right to decide whether others should have access to euthanasia. You only have a right to decide for yourself, if and when that moment comes.
Taking away someone’s right to make decisions about their own body is never acceptable. Legalising euthanasia doesn’t force anyone to choose it. It simply gives others the dignity of having that choice.
And what if someone truly wants to end their suffering? The harsh reality is that people in deep pain will find a way, with or without your approval. Denying them a safe, humane option doesn’t prevent death. It only ensures it happens in isolation, and often in more traumatic ways.
Suicide is often a hidden and solitary act, carried out behind closed doors, marked by shame, secrecy, and despair. Loved ones are left blindsided, grieving not only the loss but the silence that preceded it.
Euthanasia, by contrast, offers the chance for openness. It allows people to say goodbye, to speak honestly with those they love, and to die in the presence of care, not fear. For families, that transparency can bring comfort. They may not agree, but at least they have the chance to prepare, to support, and to find closure. It also isn’t a sudden death sentence. The waiting period allows for time to reflect, reconsider, and , if needed, change one’s mind.
The Life Foundation Network lists “seven reasons to oppose the government’s assisted suicide proposal.”- Here’s my two cents on each one:
1. Undermining the Value of Life and the “Slippery Slope”
One of the Life Network Foundation’s core arguments is that legalising assisted suicide sends the message that some lives are not worth living. They warn it could lead society down a slippery slope, where the sanctity of life is gradually eroded.
However, recognising someone’s right to end prolonged, unbearable suffering is not a denial of life’s value. It is a defence of personal autonomy. Countries such as Canada and states in the US with legal frameworks in place have shown that eligibility for euthanasia remains tightly regulated. The feared “slope” simply has not materialised. Instead, laws have respected human dignity by giving those who qualify the right to choose when and how their suffering ends.
2. Impact on Palliative Care
The Foundation also argues that introducing euthanasia could divert attention and resources away from improving palliative care. They frame it as a zero-sum game: support for assisted dying must come at the cost of comfort care.
This simply is not borne out by the data. In fact, in jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal, palliative care services have often improved. This is because the conversation around end-of-life care becomes more open, more urgent, and more patient-centred. Legalising euthanasia does not signal an end to care. It adds one more option, to be considered only when care alone no longer brings relief.
3. The Risk of Coercion
Concerns about coercion are frequently raised. The Foundation warns that vulnerable people, whether elderly, disabled, or chronically ill, may feel subtle pressure to choose death, particularly if they fear becoming a burden on loved ones. They argue that what begins as a “right to die” could evolve into a perceived “duty to die”.
The inclusion of mental illness or disability in assisted dying laws in some countries comes after careful ethical and clinical review. It is based on cases of severe, treatment-resistant suffering, not as a blanket policy. Excluding people based solely on their disability or diagnosis can be seen as discriminatory, especially if their suffering is as profound as that of someone with terminal cancer. The focus should be on suffering, autonomy, and consent, not on diagnosis categories.
4. Trust in the Medical Profession
Another argument is that euthanasia erodes trust in doctors. The Foundation says it contradicts the medical ethic of “do no harm” and blurs the line between healing and killing. They also object to any legal obligation for doctors to refer patients for euthanasia if they themselves oppose it.
However, harm is not always physical. It can also be the prolonged denial of relief. Many physicians view assisted dying not as a betrayal of their oath, but as an extension of compassionate care when all else has failed. Legal systems already respect doctors’ right to conscientious objection, while referral systems ensure that patients are not left without access. In practice, trust between doctors and patients has remained stable in countries where assisted dying is allowed.
5. A Flawed Definition of Terminal Illness
The Foundation takes issue with the government’s proposed definition of terminal illness, calling it vague and unreliable. They highlight the difficulty of predicting a six-month prognosis, the ambiguous language used in the bill, and the lack of consistency across diseases.
It is true that prognosis is not an exact science, but that is why proposed laws include requirements for multiple independent medical confirmations. The focus is not just on how long someone might have left, but on the quality and irreversibility of their suffering. It is not about perfect prediction, but about giving those with no hope of recovery the chance to choose dignity over deterioration.
6. Mental Health Assessments Are Not Foolproof
According to the Foundation, assessing whether someone is mentally fit to choose euthanasia is fraught with danger. Depression or existential distress could impair judgment, and some psychological issues might go undetected.
This is precisely why mental health assessments are built into assisted dying frameworks. People with untreated or treatable mental health conditions are typically excluded from eligibility. Determining capacity is something doctors and psychiatrists already do across a wide range of medical decisions. It is not easy, but it is not new.
7. Exclusion of Mental Illness, Disability, and Age-Related Conditions
Finally, the Foundation warns that even though the draft law excludes people with mental illness, disabilities, or age-related conditions such as dementia, this could eventually be challenged in court as discriminatory. They cite international examples where similar exclusions were later softened.
It is true that some countries have extended eligibility in specific, extreme cases of treatment-resistant suffering. However, these expansions follow ethical reviews, strict assessments, and clear thresholds. The idea is not to allow euthanasia for anyone with a disability or mental illness. It is to acknowledge that suffering can exist across diagnoses, and that excluding someone purely on the basis of a label, rather than the reality of their pain, could itself be unjust.
Using hypothetical risks to argue against legalising assisted suicide may reflect a personal agenda, but it fails to account for the lived experiences of those who are actually suffering. Instead of making assumptions, sit down and have a real conversation with someone who would consider euthanasia. Listen to their reasons. Let their voice shape the discussion, not just your beliefs.
This isn’t about proving anyone wrong. It is about making one simple point: no one has the right to make such a deeply personal decision on behalf of someone else.
Although the bill in its current form may be far from perfect, the public consultation presents an important opportunity to ensure that the perspectives of medical professionals, experts, and civil society are not only heard but meaningfully incorporated into the final legislation.
Blocking the legalisation of assisted suicide infringes on the autonomy of those who seek it. True compassion means listening to people in pain, not silencing them. What may be unthinkable for one can be peace for another. This isn’t about preserving life at all costs, it’s about easing suffering where we can.
If someone chooses to end their life on their own terms, with dignity, support, and peace, then denying them that is not an act of kindness. It is an act of control.
READ NEXT: We Got Crypto Right Early. Now Let’s Get It Right Long-Term
