Commentary

The British House of Lords select committee on medical ethics defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering".

There are two key ways in which a doctor could help a patient to end their life: active and passive euthanasia. Often people feel strongly about allowing one type but not the other, so it is important to understand their differences.

Passive euthanasia:
-Passive euthanasia occurs when doctors (or other individuals) help people end their lives by allowing them to pass by stopping an action that was keeping them alive, such as:

• switching off life-support machines
• disconnecting feeding tubes
• not carrying out a life-extending operation
• not administering life-extending drugs.

-Passive euthanasia is currently legal under specific circumstances in many countries including the UK whereas active euthanasia is not.
-This is because there is considered to be a moral difference between letting someone die by withholding treatment and actively 'killing' them.

• There are also voluntary and non-voluntary forms of passive euthanasia, with voluntary meaning the patient has given consent, and non-voluntary referring to times where the patient is not in a position to consent such as in a coma.

Active euthanasia:

• Active euthanasia is only legal in a small handful of countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada.
• Examples of active euthanasia can include administering lethal substances with the intention of ending a patients life.
• Assisted suicide comes under the umbrella of active euthanasia.
• In the UK and others, it is considered a criminal offence even with consent.

Pros of allowing both:

• Dying with dignity, in the company of loved ones and without further suffering.
• Allowing control over one's life and decisions - individuals should be given freedom and a right to die how they wish.
• Patients may have to travel to countries where it is legal in order to die on their own terms, spending thousands.
• Healthcare costs can be reduced.

Cons:

• Laws like this without good-quality universal healthcare can lead to less wealthy people resorting to euthanasia because they cannot afford comfortable end of life care.
• Permanent, non-reversible decision.
• Individuals are desperate and suicidal intent may be transient.
• Mental illnesses, particularly those unrecognised, may affect decisions.
• Risk of corruption and coercion where healthcare costs can be saved - family or staff could influence decision-making.
• Feelings of guilt and not wanting to burden family with prolonged care may persuade decisions.
• The conditions under which patients are eligible can be difficult to determine.