ANALYSIS | Voluntary euthanasia: A mature debate or a political minefield?

Both the UK’s Assisted Dying Bill and Malta’s proposed legislation to introduce assisted euthanasia focus on granting terminally ill adults the right to voluntarily end their lives under strict safeguards.

Each requires that the individual be mentally competent, over 18, and diagnosed with a terminal illness likely to lead to death within six months. Both proposals emphasise voluntary consent, medical assessments, and legal oversight to prevent abuse. They aim to provide dignity in dying while protecting vulnerable people.

But one notable difference is that, while the UK legislation is being piloted by an individual MP through a private member’s bill, the Maltese law will eventually be put forward by the government itself, following a public consultation.

Free vote or party whip?

The UK method—a private member’s bill—is more conducive to garnering cross-party consensus beyond entrenched polarities. The second reading of the bill was approved by 330 votes to 275 in a free vote. A majority of Labour MPs supported the bill, with 233 voting in favour and 147 against. On the Conservative side, 23 out of 121 MPs voted in favour.

Yet, leaving the matter in the hands of MPs risks prolonging the debate. In fact, amidst conflicting amendments at the committee stage, a vote on the final third reading of the UK bill, scheduled for 25 April, has been postponed to 16 May, amid growing uncertainty about whether the final draft will garner a majority.

It is also worth noting that most of those who voted against the bill in the UK insisted they were not ideologically opposed to it but wanted greater safeguards. These included Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, who described giving people control over how they die as “a sacred thing”. On the other side of the spectrum, Health Secretary Wes Streeting voiced opposition, citing concerns about the adequacy of palliative care and the potential risks of coercion, particularly for elderly people feeling pressured by family expectations.

In contrast, the reform in Malta is grounded in Labour’s 2022 electoral manifesto. The party had pledged “a national, mature discussion on the introduction of voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill patients.” Whether this constitutes a mandate to approve the law in this legislature is arguable, but it certainly gives Labour a full mandate to issue the consultation document. This method also ensures that the text discussed in parliament will already include changes proposed by civil society and experts.

The PN’s dilemma

It remains to be seen whether any reservations will be expressed within the Labour parliamentary group. But judging by the party’s united stance on other progressive and even less popular reforms in recent years, this seems unlikely. This could pose a poisoned chalice to the opposition, which will face four choices: An ideologically motivated ‘no’; full endorsement; partial endorsement with amendments; or a free vote. All four options are problematic for a party whose electorate is split between a conservative majority and a socially liberal minority.

Yet, if the PN adopts a contrarian stance based on the premise that life should be protected from conception to death, it risks being out of sync with public opinion. A Sunday Times poll conducted last year showed that 62% of Maltese people believe doctors should be allowed to assist terminally ill patients in ending their lives—up from 53% in a 2016 MaltaToday survey.

The PN may also opt for a stricter version of the law even though the proposed legislation is already restrictive since it limits the choice for assisted dying to terminally ill people with six months to live. Tightening it further risks rendering the law ineffective. As proposed, the law could exclude people with degenerative diseases who will only have the choice to end their life in their final six months when it will probably be too late for them to provide informed consent.

Another option for the PN is to engage in minor amendments to strengthen safeguards against abuse while effectively supporting the bill. Whether this will be acceptable to all MPs, particularly those who would see this as a betrayal of their principles remains to be seen.

Another possibility is that the party may choose to sidestep the issue by allowing a free vote. This could be justified on the grounds that it respects MPs’ consciences on a matter that transcends partisan politics. But in the absence of a united stance, individual PN MPs who vote for the bill may be left at the mercy of constituents—particularly grassroots supporters, who expect the party to toe the line set by the church and increasingly vocal lay organisations such as the Life Network Foundation.  And while a free vote would send a message of inclusion to voters who aspire for a change in government but are turned off by the PN’s conservatism, it remains to be seen whether PN MPs will risk a fall out with more conservative constituents who may be a minority in the country but a majority in the PN.