As I witnessed my grandmother’s struggle against Alzheimer’s and the final bedridden years of her life, all I could think was that it would be kinder to just put her out of her misery. Just like her, millions of people in the UK fight their illnesses until they have virtually no quality of life left and are alive for the sake of it, without the chance to choose when this stops. Despite the UK’s move towards pro-euthanasia legislation, there is still major resistance and a long way to go before assisted dying becomes a reality. 

The Freedom To Choose

Under UK law, it is impossible for someone to consent to their own death. The law maintains that someone asking to die is a sign that they are not psychologically fit to make their own decision.  Currently, assisted dying is viewed as a crime under the 1961 Suicide Act. A person who assists the suicide of another person can be sent to prison for up to 14 years — quite an extreme punishment.

Ideologically, the key reasoning behind this thinking is the idea of the ‘sanctity of life.’ Many people believe in the principle that human life is valuable and should be preserved. Actions such as euthanasia, which seek to end human life, are not therefore deemed morally acceptable. Although human life should indeed be protected, this principle can be refuted on two grounds. Firstly, the sanctity of life is a belief largely upheld by Christians. Despite the UK officially being classified as a Christian country, a recent survey on British Social Attitudes reveals that 70 per cent of people who have a religion would agree to definitely or probably letting a doctor end the life of someone who was terminally ill. Modern-day UK society is undeniably pluralist, and beliefs held by other cultures and religions are perhaps not always considered when citing the sanctity of life principle as a reason against the introduction of euthanasia. Secondly, the idea of preserving human life becomes less applicable if euthanasia is being considered in the case where palliative care has already been introduced. Clearly, the patient’s quality of life is fastly diminishing, and the question that needs to be asked is: What kind of ‘life’ is being protected here?

Understanding the Harm Principle

In countries where assisted dying has been legally sanctioned and implemented, such as Switzerland, the Harm Principle has been upheld. The Harm Principle, proposed by philosopher J.S. Mill, dictates that people are free to do as they wish as long as their actions do not harm others. This principle provides the basis for many of our political frameworks and the extent of permissible legal intervention into our autonomy. According to the Harm Principle, actions such as being consensually tattooed and pierced are allowed, even though they technically fall under the notion of grievous bodily harm. In short, the Harm Principle permits euthanasia as it entails only harming oneself, provided that the decision is made by someone who has full command of their mental faculties.

Dignitas, a non-profit organisation in Switzerland, provides physician-assisted euthanasia and offers the opportunity for a compassionate and merciful death to those who are under a great deal of suffering. Revealingly, 52 per cent of British people have said they would consider travelling to Switzerland for an assisted death. But the journey towards assisted dying is still not an easy one. Dignitas requires several months’ waiting time and confirmed proof of diagnosis to determine whether a person is right for euthanasia.

Understanding the Slippery Slope   

On the other hand, anti-euthanasia arguments do hold validity. The Slippery Slope argument proposes that it is possible to reduce suffering without killing people and that permitting euthanasia would deter medical professionals from pursuing this aim. A recent example of this occurred in Belgium in 2023. A woman suffering from terminal cancer was smothered by two nurses with a pillow following a failed euthanasia attempt, suggesting that medical professionals felt no obligation to continue her hospice care.

Another valid argument says that if euthanasia were permitted, certain vulnerable people could feel pressured to die to minimise the medical costs to their families. There is also the fear that doctors may suggest euthanasia to their patients, applying pressure where there is little or no consent.

More worryingly, if society becomes accustomed to labelling certain lives as ‘not worth living,’ this could endanger those who live ‘different’ lives and who have no intention of ending them prematurely. Liz Carr, a British actress who has the medical condition arthrogryposis, has argued that the legalisation of euthanasia has serious implications for the treatment of severely disabled people. In other words, society could plunge back in time to the eugenical Nazi regime that deemed particular groups of people as undesirable and therefore unworthy of life.

Faith in Humankind

Still, it is largely believed that we would not fall down the slippery slope of non-voluntary euthanasia — something that would be more likely in an erasive society, but not our current one.

Perhaps in light of this, there has been a movement towards pro-euthanasia legislation in the UK. Kim Leadbeater (MP) introduced a bill on assisted dying, which was passed on 29 November 2024, with 330 in favour and 275 against. The Bill proposed that an individual seeking euthanasia be over 18 and live in England or Wales, have the mental capacity to make the choice, be expected to die within six months, and satisfy two independent doctors that they are eligible, amongst other criteria.

Although concerns about assisted dying are legitimate, legalising euthanasia will provide the opportunity for a dignified and humane death for those who are terminally ill and suffering. Euthanasia should not be treated as murder, but as a rational choice — albeit a very personal one.

I hope that the push for reform in the UK continues so that, unlike my grandmother, people may be allowed to die on their own terms.

DISCLAIMER: The articles on our website are not endorsed by, or the opinions of Shout Out UK (SOUK), but exclusively the views of the author.