Authored By: Sageda El-Sanossi
University of Liverpool
Introduction
Euthanasia, the act of deliberately ending a person’s life to relieve them of pain and suffering due to incurable painful diseases, remains one of the most discussed debates in modern legal and moral discourse. It can be active, a direct action to cause death or passive, withdrawing lifesaving treatment, voluntary requested by the person or involuntary a person who wants to live but is killed anyway1. It forces society to look at all perspectives and confront its core beliefs about life, death and human rights.
Euthanasia brings a haunting and controversial question: is euthanasia an act of compassion and mercy or is it a form of murder? The answer depends on not only personal beliefs, but legal interpretation, ethics and socio-political context in which the act occurs. This article explores whether euthanasia can be justified through the lens of human rights, medical ethics legal framework and global development. It will use case law, statutory acts and recent developments.
Is It Murder?
In English law, under the Homicide Act 1957 murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice afterthought under the Kings peace2. This means that the defendant must have had the deliberate intention to end someone’s life or cause very serious harm3, euthanasia challenges this as the motivation and intention of it is to relive someone of their constant suffering. This challenges the argument that euthanasia is murder, forces society to transform their understanding of the act.
Utilitarian philosophers such as Jermey Bentham emphasise that the goal of ethics and law should be to maximise happiness and minimise pain. He believed that the moral worth of an action is measured by its ability to create the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and therefore law and legislation should be designed to promote the general good and punishment should be proportionate to the harm caused4. From this standpoint, if a patient is suffering unbearable pain and chooses death over life, it is not murder but an act of mercy that reduces harm rather than causes it.
On the other hand, Kantian philosophers such as Immanuel Kant would strongly oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide based on the belief that taking your own life is a violation of moral law 5. He argued that all human life has intrinsic worth and shouldn’t be used as a means to an end, therefore euthanasia is ethically wrong no matter what the intention is.
In medical ethics, the Hippocratic oath medical practitioners take emphasises ‘do not harm, uphold dignity and autonomy of the patient 6’. However, what constitutes ‘harm’ differs for every individual, some believe that prolonging a person’s suffering against their will is a form of harm. Patient autonomy includes the right to refuse treatment, this is within modern medicines core belief, therefore autonomy should also include the right to choose ones time of death.
Ultimately, the question of whether euthanasia is murder relies on how we interpret autonomy, intent and harm, not only in law but also in moral reasoning
Human Rights Dimensions
International human rights law offers a powerful framework for evaluating euthanasia, yet it reveals deep problems.
Artice 2 Right to life under the European Convention on Human Rights7, protects individuals right to life and the right to personal autonomy however it doesn’t grant the right to die even if its voluntary8. Some argue that this is a right a vulnerable person cannot relinquish and can send a message that some lives are worth less, pressuring them to end their life. However, this means it undermines people’s autonomy as they cannot make decisions for their own bodies if the law doesn’t agree with it. It denies vulnerable individuals right to die with dignity especially, when their life is filled with incurable pain and loss of autonomy.
Article 8 the Right to Private Life 9recognises that this includes a person’s right to choose the timing and means of their own death if they have the capacity and acted freely.
In Pretty v United Kingdom [2002]10, a woman suffering from motor neurone disease with no hope of recovery was facing a humiliating and distressing death. She wanted to peacefully end her life with the help of her family as she isn’t physically capable of doing it herself. She argued that Article 2 protects not life itself but the right to life, meaning that it protects individuals from third parties, but it recognises individuals’ choice of life or death. Thus, a person may refuse lifesaving or life prolonging treatment and may choose to commit suicide and therefore it protects both someones right to live or die11. However, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Article 2 does not grant the right to die and so her husband couldn’t lawfully assist his wife in her suicide.
This suggests that the court may recognise a suffering individuals’ pain and prevents abuse and coercion, it still don’t prioritise personal autonomy.
Global Approaches
Across the word, euthanasia laws reflect contrasting moral and political landscapes.
In the Netherlands physician administrated euthanasia was legalised under strict conditions. The patient must be suffering from unbearable pain and must gain approval from a physician that there are no other solutions to alleviate this suffering. The patient must have made this decision voluntary with no coercion or pressure12. Canada takes a more patient focus rather than a physician one, where to be eligible for both physician administrated euthanasia or physician assisted suicide you must have a terminal illness or a grievous and irremediable medical condition where they are in a state of decline that cannot be reversed13. This expansion on eligibility and focus on patient suffering emphasises human rights, safeguards individuals and protects patient autonomy.
In contrast, most of Africa and the Middle East criminalise euthanasia and assisted suicide, treating them as a homicide. Therefore. cultural norms and religious beliefs play a crucial role in how the intent of euthanasia is defined as and how its approached.
In the United Kingdom, euthanasia and assisted suicide is a criminal offence under Suicide Act 196114, with a penalty of up to 14 years in prison for assisted suicide. Despite numerous legal challenges to legalise assisted dying including Noal Conway attempts to change the law15 and the creation of the Assisted Dying Bill16 no change has occurred. Recently, MPs have backed legalising assisted dying by 23 votes however, the Terminally Ill Adults (End Of Life) Bill must be considered by th House of Lords before it can be made legal 17.
Mery or Murder?
In many developing countries, this debate cannot be separated from the systemic inequality and deprivation of resources. Where access to life saving treatment, healthcare professionals and pain relief is scarce, making the choice to die a desperate response to the suffering that society turns a blind eye on.
This calls into question if a person can truly consent to ending their life when they have no alternative option. This increases the risk of euthanasia being used as a method to free up medical resources or to release families of financial burden. This becomes abandonment rather than mercy.
Due to the weak legal systems, euthanasia can be used to disguise abuse it targets the elderly, disabled and the poor, hiding behind the façade of being compassionate. Therefore, in countries without adequate healthcare infrastructure, euthanasia comes dangerously close to murder rather than delivering mercy. Ultimately, this falls to societal and systematic failure to improve the livelihood of suffering individuals and giving them a choice rather than forcing their hand to choose death.
Conclusion
Euthanasia is a complex topic, one that will forever be debated and will never bring a simple answer. It sits at the intersection of law, morality and human rights, complicated further by global inequality and the emotional weight of suffering and death.
Whether Euthanasia is murder or mercy depends on the intent, context and access to alternatives. This article has explored the different philosophical and global approaches to euthanasia, highlighting reasoning behind how they operate as well as the impact it has on society. It has assessed global developments and systemic inequality emphasising the risk of euthanasia becoming a reflection of social failure rather than ethical progress. Therefore, legal reform must be accompanied with safeguards and investment into resources most importantly life affirming care to ensure we all live well before choosing death.
Reference(S):
1 NHS, ‘Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide (NHS, 23 July 2023),https://www.nhs.uk/tests-and treatments/euthanasia-and-assisted suicide/#:~:text=Euthanasia%20is%20the%20act%20of,considered%20to%20be%20assistin g%20suicide. <accessed 26 August 2025>
2 Homicide Act 1957
3 Law Commission, ‘Mureder’, (Law Commission, 29 November 2006), https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/murder/ accessed 26 August 2025
4 Utilitarianism, ‘Jermy Bentham’, (Unitarianism, NA),https://utilitarianism.net/utilitarian thinker/jeremy-bentham/ <accessed 27 August 2025>
5Iain Brassington, ‘Killing people: what Kant could have said about suicide and euthanasia but did not’ (2006) 32(10) Journal of Medical Ethics 571, 573
6Rachel Hajar, ‘The Physician’s Oath: Historical Perspectives’ (2017) 18(4) Heart Views 154, 156
7 Human Rights Act 1998, S2
8 House of Lords Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill, ‘Human Rights Act and Assisted Dying’ (Parliament.uk, 2005), https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldselect/ldasdy/86/86we08.htm#:~:text=The% 20Human%20Rights%20Act%201998,the%20right%20to%20personal%20autonomy.&text= 3.3%20Pro%20euthanasia%20advocates%20often,has%20innate%20and%20infinite%20valu e <accessed 27 August 2025>
9 Human Rights Act 1989, S8
10 Pretty v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 1
11 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011129/pretty-1.htm 12 Emily Harrop et al, ‘Views of patients about medical assistance in dying (MAID): A qualitative interview study’ (2019) 9 BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care 390, 392 <Canadian and Dutch doctors’ roles in assistance in dying – PMC> accessed 31 August 2025. 13 Dignity in Dying, ‘Canada’ (Dignity in Dying) https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/assisted dying/assisted-dying-around-the-world/canada/< accessed 30 August 2025> 14 Suicide Act 1961, S2
15 Care Not Killing, ‘Supreme Court ends Conway case’ (Care Not Killing, 27 November 2018) https://carenotkilling.org.uk/articles/supreme-court-ends-conway-case/ accessed 31 August 2025
16 Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
17 BBC News, ‘UK turns to AI and drones for new battlefield strategy’ (BBC News) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y5d2g3wgxo accessed 31 August 2025.
