The euthanasia debate

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are matters of public concern because they involve one person facilitating the death of another. Any change in our law would have profound effects on the social fabric of our society, on our attitudes towards each other’s deaths and illnesses and on our attitudes towards those who are ill and have disabilities.

The pro-euthanasia and assisted suicide lobby emphasises the importance of personal choice and autonomy. Should not patients have the right to end their lives? Yet, such a right legislated for might easily and unintentionally transform itself into a ‘duty’ to die. Any specific criteria laid down by law would never be enough to prevent abuse or misdiagnosed cases.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are never acceptable acts of mercy. Photo: Shutterstock.com

Changing the law to allow euthanasia or assisted suicide will inevitably put pressure on vulnerable people to end their lives for fear of being a financial, emotional or care burden upon others. This would significantly affect people who are disabled, elderly, sick or depressed.

Some would face the added risk of coercion by others who might stand to gain from their deaths. Fear and anxiety would be promoted rather than individual autonomy. We must never lose sight of the large number of people who are terminally ill and have exceptionally found richness and purpose in life despite the pain and hardship.

We already played God in legislating for parents to have control over how their offspring arrive in the world. Let us not also give control over how one should leave it, as we would be devaluing life. One of the inevitable aspects of debates about euthanasia is the reluctance on the part of advocates to confront the essence of what they propose.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are never acceptable acts of mercy. They always gravely exploit the suffering and desperate, extinguishing life in the name of the ‘quality of life’ itself.

Mark Said LL.D – Msida

Merciful and compassionate Malta

The letter ‘Parochial Malta’ by John Guillaumier (December 24) confirms once more this person’s hatred towards everything that may have direct or indirect reference to our religion. As usual, his expressions with regard to our religious traditions are insulting and offensive.

His short but malicious letter cannot be ignored. His description of the contents in the Social/Personal page of this paper is an insult to the Maltese community in general. Out of his grudge he compares such contents to a ‘Church notice board’ making the paper look like a ‘Church’ newspaper.

It is very clear that the daily news about births, birthdays, wedding anniversaries, obituaries and memorials for people who passed away are too much for him to endure. They are an annoyance even if he knows very well that this personal information is provided and paid for by families and relatives, whether Christian or otherwise. 

The fact that they ask for prayers, mention life after death, rejoice or express gratitude to God is for him a daily shock due to his bias and prejudice against our religion. Such daily news about our brethren allows us to express our regrets, sympathy and solidarity to our relatives and friends.

He really was disrespectful to the majority of Maltese families. If this annoys Guillaumier, he can ignore the page in question and refrain from hurling insults at a community which, fortunately, cherishes our valued traditions.

Times of Malta needs no advice from Guillaumier to broaden its horizons. The fact that his letters are published speaks for itself. Maybe it is Guillaumier himself who needs to broaden his mind, obsessed as he is by his own convictions and giving no signs of any change to his unorthodox beliefs.

Carmel Vella – Mellieħa