Euthanasia: A humane dilemma or a theological one?

James Vella Clark of Valletta writes:

The current debate on euthanasia is both timely and deeply complex. As with many ‘national conversations’, the timing of this particular discussion stands to be debated. After all, in politics, timing is always key. But that is not the point. What makes this issue especially compelling is the need to strike a balance between what is humane and what is theological.

Suffering challenges us all. It evokes a natural human response: compassion. No one wants to suffer and no one likes to see others in pain. 

Suffering challenges everyone. Photo: Shutterstock.com

From a humane perspective, alleviating suffering seems not only reasonable but necessary. Yet, euthanasia is not just a medical or emotional issue – it is also a moral and philosophical one, rooted in long-standing beliefs about the sanctity of life.

Religious teachings – particularly in predominantly Catholic societies like ours – uphold the idea that life is sacred, that suffering can hold spiritual meaning, and that the authority over life and death belongs to God alone. This perspective reminds us that not everything painful is without purpose and not all solutions lie within our grasp.

I find the debate compelling partly because, at this point in time, I admit that I am still undecided. 

On one hand, I admire the dignity with which many have endured pain, choosing to carry their burden with grace, even in the darkest of circumstances. On the other hand, I understand the very human impulse to ask: What is the point?

In a world where convenience and efficiency have become virtues, choosing the “easier” way out can appear not just tempting but logical.

There is also a societal dimension to consider. We live in a culture that often seeks instant solutions, sometimes at the cost of reflection or deeper understanding. Euthanasia must not become another expression of this instinct.

And, yet, speaking personally, if I were ever reduced to a permanent vegetative state with no hope of recovery, I would not want to become a burden to my loved ones. In such a scenario, I believe the option of euthanasia should be available. If I were conscious and suffering, I might still choose to endure. But that is easy to say now. None of us truly knows what we would want when faced with such a reality.

What is clear is that this is not an easy debate, nor should it be. The ethical, medical and spiritual dimensions all deserve attention and respect. I can only hope that those tasked with drafting policy and law are guided by people who are informed, compassionate and, above all, capable of rising above ideological noise.

My own view, evolving as it may be, is this: euthanasia should be legally available under strict, transparent and carefully monitored safeguards.

Ultimately, it should remain a decision made in accordance with one’s conscience, personal beliefs and dignity.

This, to me, is what true freedom looks like – and it is a freedom worth debating, carefully and responsibly.