The news last week that the Church in Malta has formalised the transfer of Dar Adelaide Cini in Santa Venera to the Hospice Movement, for its utilisation as a complex providing state-of-the-art palliative care, was most welcome.

The Church has most admirably provided facilities that will permit Hospice to offer care for individuals with terminal illnesses based on the most advanced practices available while ensuring the highest levels of dignified treatment.

In doing so, it is putting into practice its teaching about the correct moral approach to these delicate issues. The initiative brings to the fore once again the issue of euthanasia in Malta.

The Church had signalled its intention to involve itself in the provision of palliative care services for the terminally ill as far back as 2016, during the period designated as the Year of Mercy by Pope Francis.

Round about that time the issue of euthanasia was being debated in the Parliamentary Committee for the Family and the Church had clearly articulated its stance on medically assisted suicide.

Stated simply, the Catholic position is that the protection of life is superior to the liberty of the individual and the State does not have the moral right to aid and abet individuals who even because of pain, extreme discomfort and suffering wish to bring about their own premature demise.

This does not mean that we are all morally bound to possibly live our final days in extreme misery and that no steps which may unintentionally shorten our days may be taken.

For example, it is entirely permissible to take medication which attenuates grave pain even if the secondary effect is a hastening of death. We can never understand those who are experiencing extreme pain to the extent that they want to end their precious life.

Many also argue that human beings should be as free as possible and there should never be unnecessary restraints on human rights.

The State is not bound to follow Catholic teaching on this – or any other – matter when contemplating which laws to enact and amend.

 It should ideally base its laws on moral principles and the primacy of life and illuminate any legislative and policy measures it seeks to undertake.

While the subject of euthanasia does not appear to be on the national agenda, one must not assume that the status quo need necessarily persist forever.  We have to carefully monitor both the philosophical and ethical discussions on the topic of end of life and human freedom, as well as scientific developments in the area.

Any novel discovery or refinement in thinking which militates in favour of the respect for individual decisions without violating the principle of respect for life should be reflected in legislation and in medical practice.

Meanwhile, the government should support to the full noble joint initiatives such as that between Church and an NGOin the provision of assistance to the terminally ill while ensuring it keeps tabs on what is happening in the international arena to enact legislation as appropriate.

 Those members of our society who are facing the ordeal of terminal illness deserve no less.