A plea for compassion Suzanne Vella of Żabbar writes: I am writing to express profound concerns regarding the proposed euthanasia legislation, as, at times, its implications sound like the challenging realities of self-harm. At their core, they can stem from deep emotional distress and a desperate search for relief, control or the alleviation of suffering. Both they can represent an attempt to escape a reality of physical or emotional pain that feels overwhelming and unmanageable, possibly aggravated by impaired coping mechanisms. The current proposal for euthanasia, in essence, legitimises the act of inflicting self-harm through the administration of lethal medication or other means. Granting individuals the option to inflict such ultimate harm upon themselves or others fundamentally diverges from the principles of a society committed to self-respect and the respect of all its members. How can such legislation be considered truly beneficial for our society? It is crucial to recognise that euthanasia, even for the terminally ill, as suggested in the white paper, is not exclusively about addressing physical pain. Not all individuals facing a terminal illness experience unbearable pain, if any. There are times when those with a prognosis of six months to live may seek euthanasia only due to a profound sense of meaninglessness, as can be seen in other countries. As a teacher, in schools, sometimes, we become aware of students grappling with self-harm often do so because life feels meaningless, hard or fraught with emotional and existential pain. In such cases, the approach is always one of support, guidance and assistance in finding purpose and meaning in one’s life. What message, then, would this law convey? That life is without value if one knows they have six months or a limited time to live? And what about young individuals struggling with a profound sense of meaninglessness and who are not terminally ill? I’m quite sure some of them will also want this right. Will we be paving the way for it by introducing this law? While often presented as an exercise of personal autonomy, euthanasia offers a misguided notion of freedom. Life is not lived in isolation; such momentous decisions have profound ripple effects on those around us. Consider the immense psychological impact a grandparent’s choice of assisted suicide, rather than going through a natural death, could have on their children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews. We are all highly aware of how deeply personal decisions can affect an entire family unit. Individuals who have supported a terminally ill family member and engaged with organisations like the Hospice Movement can attest to the invaluable and compassionate service they provide, almost like a family member. Their unwavering support, delivered with exceptional empathy and, when necessary, through daily home visits, exemplifies the true needs of these difficult life situations, which we all wish to be over quickly. This is what our country needs, more hospice services. We require an expansion of these vital services, not the promotion of a cold white paper and legislative framework that diminishes hope, respect and the essential human companionship crucial for individuals navigating their final journey. There is absolutely no dignity in providing a “euthanasia room” in our hospitals for the ill, the fearful, or the desperate. Similarly, there is no dignity in death by suicide. Our efforts should instead be focused on fostering a culture of profound care on various levels, unwavering support and the preservation of hope and respect for all individuals till the very end of the journey of life.