Should a terminally-ill patient be allowed euthanasia or assisted suicide? Should such a patient be given the faculty to pre-inform medical teams of when to pull the plug on his or her life support systems should the worst come to worst, or of what treatment to administer or not administer?
These are thorny and delicate issues that have been placed on the national agenda, and which are expected to come up for discussion by the Parliamentary Committee of Health, Family and Social Affairs next autumn.
They are also highly emotive subjects that are a virtual moral minefield but, as a nation, it is high time that we begin to discuss, and decide, on what rights and/or options should be given to people who have reached the end of their lives and who wish to pass away in the most peaceful and dignified way possible.
In is not this newspaper’s intention to sway the conversation that has begun, and which will undoubtedly increase in tempo in good time, in one way or another. The best that we can do is to present the facts and arguments for and against such end-of-life options and, above all else, appeal for as wide a discussion on the subject as possible.
These are, after all, also highly subjective issues and as such one may be a staunch proponent or opponent of euthanasia, for example, while in full health but they may have quite another view on such matters if they are diagnosed with a terminal illness. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to such issues, you never really know what your position will be until you are actually in that position yourself.
As far as euthanasia is concerned, one could very well argue a person’s life is their life to do with what they will, and if their suffering has reached a point that can no longer be borne a person should be able to end their life as they deem fit.
But then again euthanasia means killing a person, and we need to remember that it entails taking a life at the end of the day. And if euthanasia is to be formally allowed at some point down the road, who would take that decision - a doctor, the courts or simply the individual requesting it?
Moreover, the administering of euthanasia drugs could also prove to be another controversial issue, with doctors finding such a practice in conflict with their Hippocratic Oath.
The debate over the institution of a living will, on the other hand, is quite another matter altogether.
A living will is a written statement detailing a person's desires regarding their medical treatment in circumstances in which they are no longer in possession of their faculties and unable to express informed consent. It is basically a set of instructions to physicians from a patient on the treatment they should or should not be given should they, for example, be living only by means of life support.
Of course, such matters are dealt with ad hoc and in a case by case way, but it would be far more preferable to start with an earnest discussion on the establishment of formal living wills.
As such, the country may be jumping the gun if it chooses to start discussions on euthanasia before delving into the merits of a living will which, logically, must come first and foremost.
Whatever the discussion that is to be had, that discussion must be the widest possible - encapsulating the ethical, religious, moral and scientific domains. But overall, those who must be heard, and heard well, are those who have found themselves in such a position that they need to seriously consider euthanasia or drawing up a living will – they are, after all, the best informed and the real experts.