AT THE HEART of euthanasia lies questions that are both intimate and unsettling: how should we confront the limits of suffering, the fragility of life and the desire for dignity in the face of death? The word itself, drawn from the Greek eu (good) and thanatos (death), promises a “good death”. Yet, this promise is fraught with complexity. As Josef Kure observes, euthanasia has always been entwined with moral ambiguity, often blurred with “assisted death”, “mercy killing” or even suicide, each carrying profoundly different ethical and legal implications. In contemporary bioethics, euthanasia is commonly defined as a deliberate intervention undertaken with the intention of ending life to relieve intractable suffering, a definition that may mask the deep human anguish at its centre.
For mental health professionals, the question is never merely theoretical. It touches the core of human dignity and the responsibility of a healthcare provider. Ethical principles act as a compass when navigating this moral terrain. The American Psychological Association (APA) highlights (i) beneficence and non-maleficence, our duty to promote wellbeing and prevent harm, and (ii) the respect for people’s rights and dignity, which safeguards autonomy and privacy. In Malaysia, the Code of Ethics for Counsellors mirrors these commitments, emphasising the balance between respecting choice and mitigating harm when facing decisions that confront life and death.
While these frameworks guide therapists, the question of euthanasia extends well beyond clinical practice. It surfaces in public debates, in families struggling with end-of-life decisions, in patients living with chronic pain and even in young people overwhelmed by isolation. Simply ignoring the topic does not make it disappear. The task is not to judge or offer definitive answers, but to listen with empathy, provide clarity, and ensure that conversations about life and death are conducted responsibly.
