Half of the Maltese population favours voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill patients, while 21.5% remain undecided and 29% are against it. Notably, an intriguing and surprising figure is that 40% of practising Catholics also support the idea of voluntary euthanasia.
Undoubtedly, ample poll data is showing that the majority of the Maltese public support voluntary euthanasia in principle. Yet, it can be argued that this level of support may be tentative, lacking in depth of understanding, and devoid of strong conviction.
We are still lacking data gauging public attitudes in light of the various empirical and rational arguments against the subject, despite a public consultation on assisted voluntary euthanasia launched by the Office of the Prime Minister in May 2025.
In all probability, and as already happened in more than one country abroad, public attitudes change dramatically once some of the key practical implications of euthanasia are considered.
It is what happened in England prior to the introduction of an assisted dying bill by backbench Labour MP Kim Leadbeater in 2024. It is important to highlight that assisted dying was not part of Labour's election manifesto, nor was the bill brought forward by the government.
Initially and prior to the introduction of the bill, the former Voluntary Euthanasia Society, subsequently rebranded Dignity in Dying, claimed a figure of 80% in favour after it conducted a survey.
So far, there was nothing that surprising. It would be odd for people not to be moved by some of the tragic stories of the 'hard cases' and to say they support a means of alleviating such suffering.
But percentages started shifting widely around when those who supported euthanasia in principle were asked which of the arguments presented would make them change their minds. Overall, 42% of those who originally supported the bill changed their mind on the basis of at least one of the arguments.
The arguments varied from the risk of people feeling pressurised into ending their lives early so as not to be a financial or care burden on loved ones to changes in the law to allow euthanasia for people with chronic but not fatal diseases, disabled people, children and those with mental illnesses and dementia.
As of now, the bill remains mired in a contentious debate.
Comparable circumstances have been noted in both China and Portugal, where public opinion surveys keep shifting between conflicting perspectives and remain in progress. While there is significant cultural and ethical opposition to active euthanasia, views on passive euthanasia are more nuanced, influenced by traditional values, family dynamics, and the impact of international bioethical debates.
On 26 June 2021, an Assisted Dying Bill was lodged at Holyrood for consideration by the Scottish Parliament. It was the latest in a long line of similar attempts to enshrine assisted dying in law, all of which have failed.
Very few topics related to end-of-life care are as controversial as voluntary euthanasia. From the time of Socrates to the present day, passion has fuelled the debate over the moral and legal validity of assisting a person, in certain clearly defined contexts, to end their life.
Comparing the contemporary debate with those of the past, the arguments for and against are almost exactly the same. What has changed, apparently, is the strength of public opinion.
However, public opinion is a fickle guide in matters of law and morality. Concern must be expressed about reading too much into the latest local survey, particularly when the sample of people of faith is actually just a proportion of the stated sample, and its sponsor is undoubtedly pro-euthanasia. When determining the moral and legal legitimacy of assisting someone in choosing to die, thoughtful principles and careful reflection should always take precedence over the noisy opinions of the faceless majority.
Before a perspective founded on reasoned thinking can be developed, the foundation must be prepared. Much of the controversy around the legalisation of assisted dying is due to the emotive language that is, uncritically, drawn into the debate. Terms like euthanasia, voluntary euthanasia, assisted suicide and mercy killing are too laden with historical and partisan baggage to be helpful. The term 'assisted dying' is not so tainted.
Simply put, therefore, the question centres upon whether an assisted death should be a legitimate end-of-life option when palliative care does not offer a terminally ill person a satisfactory answer to their suffering and impending painful demise. It involves an individual making a conscious, informed decision to end their life prematurely and being actively assisted in overcoming the obstacles that prevent them from doing so.
It's an inherent human instinct to survive and natural to be afraid of death. While it is true that the number of individuals who might choose this method of dying would likely be relatively small, the significance lies not in the number who opt for it, but in the mere availability of such an option.
Whether legislation allowing for voluntary euthanasia will eventually be enacted or not remains to be seen. Our lawmakers, confronted with a largely hesitant and fragmented pro-euthanasia group and a determined, unified opposition, may choose to keep euthanasia illegal while trying to ease the harshness of the law in the most extreme situations.
Even if it is approved, the discussion will persist. The fact that we can help someone end their life doesn't necessarily mean we ought to, and believing that we should doesn't guarantee that we actually can.
Dr Mark Said is a lawyer