Further to the launching of the public consultation on voluntary assisted dying for terminally ill patients, everything seems to be pointing in one direction: we will eventually have a law in place ostensibly to lay down strict parameters and regulate euthanasia.

So far, the intention is to have a tightly regulated framework limited to mentally competent adults suffering from a terminal illness expected to lead to death within six months.

Moreover, there will be required an assessment by three medical professionals who will have to be unanimous in giving a go-ahead.

Yet, beware!

There is no guarantee that, with time, any euthanasia law in Malta, despite its initial strict restrictions, will not be gradually amended to ease, if not remove, such restrictions to such an extent that the least excuse would qualify for euthanasia to be practised.

It happened before with regard to our divorce legislation.

It has been almost 15 years since a referendum paved the way for the introduction of divorce legislation in Malta.

Initially, spouses needed to have lived apart for four of the previous five years at the time they filed for divorce or after the lapse of four years since the date of their legal separation. 10 years later, the law was extensively amended so that, today, a couple already legally separated through a court sentence or contract has no waiting period before a request for a divorce is filed. In cases when the couple are only de facto separated, and the request for divorce is made by both, the time now is six months. In cases when only one of the partners files for divorce, the time lapse is one year.

Getting a divorce today has never been easier. Could the same thing happen with euthanasia?

The legislation of many countries abroad provides a strong clue.

Several countries have seen their original euthanasia laws widen over time, expanding eligibility criteria or including broader definitions of permissible conditions.

In some jurisdictions where assisted dying has been legal for longer, eligibility has expanded over time. Sometimes this has occurred through formal legislative changes, often prompted by legal challenges; in other cases, policies and the way legislation has been applied have evolved in line with changing societal expectations, acceptance and norms.

Some notable examples include Canada, Belgium, Austria, Spain and the Netherlands.

Belgium initially legalised voluntary euthanasia in 2002 but later amended the law to include minors, making it the first country to allow euthanasia without an age requirement.

The Netherlands legalised euthanasia in 2001, with a broad allowance for voluntary euthanasia based on suffering deemed "unbearably without hope", as well as for advanced dementia with prior requests.

In Germany, assisted suicide is legal as long as the lethal drug is taken without any help, such as someone guiding or supporting the patient's hand. Apart from that, there are no other restrictions.

In Switzerland, the law is more relaxed: it allows assisted suicide as long as there are no "self-seeking motives" involved. Switzerland has tolerated the creation of organisations such as Dignitas and Exit, which provide assisted dying services for a fee.

Coupled with all the above, in most countries where assisted dying is legal, it is fully integrated into the broader health and social care system, meaning that it is publicly funded and provided within mainstream health care services as part of standard benefit packages. Would Malta eventually follow suit? To date, the government has not addressed this controversial aspect.

Of course, in the long run, the more individuals resort to voluntary assisted dying, the more the government will save on the exorbitant costs of running a modern palliative care system.

Let's call a spade a spade: Voluntary assisted dying weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life, accepting that some lives are worth less than others. It also risks being the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable. Moreover, it might not be in a person's best interests while affecting other people's rights, not just those of the patient.

It is interesting to note that, on more than one occasion, applicants have asked the European Court of Human Rights to interpret the right to life to include a right to determine one's own time of death and the right to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment.

The legal argument ran that such rights included a right to end the suffering from illness through euthanasia or, alternatively, that a blanket prohibition conflicted with an individual's right to a private life. It went on that, through prohibition, governments were interfering in essentially private matters, which should be divorced from the state, and did not implicate the public interest.

All these arguments to secure relief were denied.

We also know that diagnoses and prognoses of a disease can be wrong. For instance, predicting how long someone may live with cancer is very difficult at best. Some who were expected to die in a few months might live on for years; conversely, some might live a much shorter time than the carers anticipate.

Finally, aside from moral and ethical considerations, legalising euthanasia has the potential to weaken and damage the relationship between patients and physicians.

Another valid concern is that the right to die may well become a duty to die.

So will the proposed legislation be cast in stone, or will it open the door wide open to lawful murder?

Dr Mark Said is a lawyer