Letters to the editor - May 27, 2025

Restrictive guidelines

Eddy Privitera of Naxxar writes:

The decision by parliamentary secretary, Rebecca Buttigieg, to announce guidelines on the subject of euthanasia for public consultation, is greatly welcomed. But my first reaction, besides satisfaction, was that the guidelines being proposed are too restrictive.

In my view there are three flaws in the proposed guidelines. The six- month timeline; that the medical condition must be “terminal”; and that close family relatives cannot decide for the patient who may have suffered, say, a very serious head injury, thus incapacitating him/her from expressing his/her voluntary wish for euthanasia.

Surely, there are medical conditions which are not “terminal within six months” which cause inhuman suffering, not just to the patient but also to the patient’s loved ones as well. 

There are medical conditions which are not “terminal within six months” which cause inhuman suffering. Photo: Shutterstock.com

A report in the Times of Malta on May 12 (‘This is not life’), is just one example of so many similar heart-rending situations. Such medical conditions can last even years, with no possibility of any recovery, but with worsening effects over time.

Let me mention just two examples of so many others. One is a terminal illness. And the second one a non-terminal illness: ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis) is considered a terminal illness. While 50% of people with ALS die within 14 to 18 months from diagnosis – not six months – some continue to live, or exist, for even 10 years or much longer. ALS “causes severe muscle weakness, resulting in loss of mobility and inability to breathe without mechanical assistance. Muscle weakness that controls chewing and swallowing thus making it difficult to eat and drink due to the high risk of choking”. 

LIS (Locked-In-Syndrome) is considered a non-terminal illness. There is no cure and it’s a lifelong condition, and has a high mortality rate in acute situations.

“Patients with ILS have intact cognitive functions. Although they can hear and see, they cannot move the lower part of their face, chew, swallow, speak, breathe, move their limbs, or move their eyes laterally”. Such people can exist (I don’t consider such a situation as “living”), for up to 10 years.

Another flaw in the announced proposals is that “patients would not be allowed to opt for euthanasia unless they were fully conscious and aware of what they were doing”.

There are many cases of persons who either have a very serious accident or stroke and end up in an irreversible medical condition which incapacitates them from expressing their wishes. And are experiencing insupportable medical conditions which can last for a long time, even years. Why shouldn’t their close family members decide on their behalf?

There are numerous other heart-rending cases of both terminal and non-terminal illnesses which should qualify for euthanasia, but due to space limitations, I am unable to mention them. 

While those who, for some reason or other, do not agree with assisted dying, have every right to their opinion, they should also accept that they should not deny such a right to those who may need it and voluntarily want it.