Euthanasia has the potential to put terminally ill patients in a position of greater suffering, Nadia Delicata told a joint meeting of the House Social Affairs Committee, the Health Committee and the Family Affairs Committee, which convened to discuss the possible introduction of euthanasia this evening.

Dr Delicata, a lecturer on moral theology at the university, said that the terminally ill would be forced to make the choice of whether to choose euthanasia or continue living, adding that “in death, there is no suffering, but there is nothing else, either”.

Emmanuel Agius, dean of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Malta and a member of the Ministry of Health’s Bioethics Committee, spoke about the importance of respecting the fundamental human right to life.

Quoting from European Council and European Commission recommendations, he noted that EU member states had chosen to focus discussion relating to end-of-life treatment on the introduction and improvement of palliative care services, and that the UN Convention on Human Rights provided for a fundamental (but not absolute) right to life.

Elaborating on the concept of human dignity, and making reference to the Orvieto Convention, Rev. Prof. Agius said that this concept should not be used emotively, but normally.

While an emotive approach to deciding whether euthanasia did in fact preserve human dignity better than the prolongation of suffering, he quoted Viktor Frankl’s remarks on the “courage to suffer” and noted the normative obligation to preserve life.

He also questioned how a doctor who had taken a Hippocratic oath to protect life could assist its coming to an end.

Legislation should differentiate between euthanasia, which ended life, and palliative care, which sought to reduce suffering. Whilst palliative care could at times involve the option to refuse treatment, this option was not equivalent to euthanasia.