Across the world, laws around euthanasia and assisted dying are some of the most restrictive in healthcare. For patients living with chronic or terminal illness, this creates an impossible reality: they are forced to endure daily suffering with very few choices about how their life might end. Only six countries currently permit assisted dying, and even then, many impose strict rules.
Take Oregon, for example. There, assisted dying is only allowed if a doctor predicts you have six months or less to live. The UK is considering a similar model. On the surface, this seems like a cautious compromise-but in reality, it risks being deeply unfair. After all, suffering is not defined by a stopwatch. A person in relentless pain but expected to live for years still experiences unbearable suffering. Why should they be excluded?
Belgium has taken a different route: assisted dying is available to anyone with "unrelievable mental or physical suffering," regardless of how long they have left. This approach recognises that autonomy, dignity, and relief from pain matter just as much as clinical timelines. It also addresses the slippery slope argument often raised in opposition-showing that safeguards can exist without being unnecessarily limiting.
The current UK healthcare system adds another layer to this debate. Palliative care, which should provide comfort at the end of life, is inconsistent and underfunded. Costs range wildly between GBP 50 and GBP 2,000 per patient per year, and many people die without receiving proper support. In fact, of the 650,000 people who die each year in the UK, nearly half a million need palliative care-but more than 100,000 never receive it. It's no surprise then that some people turn to desperate measures, ending their lives alone and traumatically.
Would legalising assisted dying ease this strain-or make it worse? Some argue it could free up resources. Others worry it would divert attention and money away from improving palliative care, leaving patients feeling pressured to choose death over inadequate support. There's also the risk of medical authority being misused, or vulnerable people feeling coerced.
Ultimately, this debate sits at the intersection of ethics, medicine, and human rights. Life has sanctity, but so does dignity. If healthcare is truly patient-centred, then both strong palliative care and fair, well-regulated assisted dying laws need to coexist. Suffering is suffering, and patients deserve options-not restrictions based on arbitrary timelines.