The bishops have called on MPs to safeguard the dignity of human life in a letter expressing concern over the debate on assisted suicide.

Archbishop Charles Scicluna and Gozo Bishop Mario Grech told MPs in a letter, (see on pdf below), that any act that terminated life or accelerated death had to remain outlawed.

The debate on euthanasia was sparked by ALS sufferer Joe Magro who is calling on Parliament to make the practice legal. He put forward his request a fortnight ago to the Family Affairs Committee chaired by Labour Whip Godfrey Farrugia.

The bishops said that although they understood the sufferings of those who were terminally ill and their relatives, any act which terminated life or which accelerated death was “not a question of freedom of choice”.

The objective of the law is to provide protection to every human life

“The objective of the law is to provide protection to every human life, particularly when this is disadvantaged and vulnerable, rather than to facilitate and promote its termination,” the bishops wrote in their letter sent to MPs last week.

They argued that every society that weakened the legal prohibition of intentional killing of a human being would be eroding its moral and social fibre.

Mr Magro spoke of his yearning to live in dignity in an interview with this newspaper.

He fears this would be taken away from him when his neurodegenerative disease leaves him totally paralysed.

“I feel my life will lack dignity if I am totally paralysed and dependent on others, which is why I would like to have the possibility to die in a legal way,” Mr Magro had said.

Euthanasia is illegal but 12 per cent of doctors surveyed recently said they had received requests for assisted suicide from their patients.

The bishops have now weighed in on the debate, insisting that the termination of life was not the natural remedy to becoming dependent, weak or vulnerable due to sickness, disability or severe suffering.

A modern society, they argued, is expected to respond with solid and sensitive structures that provide solace and encouragement so that no one is marginalised, falls behind or is considered a burden on others.

“A society shows its merciful countenance when vulnerable people are neither abandoned or better, when it does not introduce legal protection for medical assistance with the aim to accelerate the process of death.”

Echoing the words of Dr Farrugia, who is opposed to euthanasia, the bishops said society ought to respond by consolidating palliative care and continue to broaden the net of social solidarity through valuable free-of-charge services that the Hospice Movement was providing in the community to many patients with terminal illness and their relatives.

They conceded that the patient had the legal and moral right to refuse “disproportionate medical treatment” which did not offer any hope of benefit, involved exorbitant costs or inconvenience or because it involved severe pain and suffering.

However, they insisted that the decision to withhold or withdraw medical treatment because of these reasons was “ethically different” from the request of a patient for medical assistance to die.

While in the former the intention is to refrain from any medical intervention out of respect for the natural process of death, in the latter, the intention behind the medical intervention is to kill the patient.

We believe that the medical assistance given to the patients for the abrupt termination of life could never be in his or her best interest

They held that the protection of life exceeded the right to liberty, adding that autonomy did not give people the right to unilaterally decide to end their life.

“The request of the patient to be given medical assistance that directly causes death, even when death is imminent, is not a question of freedom of choice,” the bishops said, adding autonomy enjoyed by every human being was not absolute or unlimited.

“The protection of human life, in particular when this is helpless and vulnerable, is an ethical and legal principle that goes beyond the principle of autonomy,” they insisted.

The bishops said legalising euthanasia would change the culture and mentality in the country on how the elderly, people with chronic illness, people with disability or other conditions will be perceived.

The bishops said they stood “shoulder-to-shoulder” with patients facing severe pain, physical or mental disability, or absolute dependence on others.

However, while respecting those who have become tired of life and have lost the will to fight its battles, they said they believed the value of human life did not depend on sickness or health.

“We believe that the medical assistance given to the patients for the abrupt termination of life could never be in his or her best interest.”