The UK (England and Wales) is currently attempting to pass assisted dying laws that would permit terminally ill people with a life expectancy of six months to request assistance from their doctors to end their lives. There are several safeguards proposed, which include:

Similar laws have been passed across Australia, New Zealand, and Canada in recent years. Some laws differ; for example, in some parts of Australia, the law only permits doctors to prescribe a lethal drug for a person who must then self–administer the drug and only permits practitioners to administer the drug to the patient if the patient cannot physically ingest the drug.

Politicians and citizens around the world are more frequently and consistently grappling with whether to legalise assisted dying: is it time for Singapore to consider it?

What do people say about assisted dying?

There are many arguments for and against such laws, which have been reported in the news media and by politicians, researchers, and advocacy groups.

Generally, those opposing such laws argue that it is not possible to prevent non-eligible people from dying, no matter how many safeguards there are in place. They argue that vulnerable people, particularly elderly people, will feel pressured into dying early so as to avoid being a burden on their family and that society has a legitimate interest in protecting people from unlawful and unethical deaths. Many other claims are made, such as religious opposition to assisted dying, that assisted dying might take away from palliative care resources, or that assisted dying is not needed because all pain can be palliated with drugs.

Those proposing such laws argue that it is a patient’s choice how they die: if they are going to experience intolerable suffering through disease progression, they ought to be able to die with dignity on their own terms. Many proponents argue that existing practices, such as withholding and withdrawing treatment and palliative sedation, are forms of assisted dying, and that there is no real difference between these and voluntary assisted dying. Other claims include the argument that assisted dying would only be accessible to a very limited number of people, and that assisted dying laws can provide adequate safeguards to protect people.

One argument raised in favour of passing assisted dying laws is that there is public consensus within society in favour of doing so. That is, polls within some countries that have passed assisted dying laws show that the public wants to legalise assisted dying. For example, within Australia, recent polling found that 76% of those surveyed supported voluntary assisted dying laws.¹ In New Zealand, 65.2% of people voted in favour of legalising assisted dying in a national referendum in 2020.² In Canada, a 2023 poll found that 80% of people agree with the assisted dying laws, their eligibility criteria, and safeguards.³ In the UK, recent studies show that between two–thirds⁴ and three–quarters⁵ of people support assisted dying laws.

In states that seek to make laws that are representative of the views of the public, these findings of both public consensus, and politicians accepting this public consensus, should be no surprise.

However, in order for the research to be useful and, more importantly, fair, the public must be informed of the range of reasons in favour of supporting and prohibiting assisted dying, as well as the breadth and depth of evidence-based research coming from countries where assisted dying laws are already in place. The law should follow public consensus, but the public ought to be informed.

Where should Singapore start?

Discussions about assisted dying are culturally, emotionally, and socially difficult. They require confronting one’s own mortality as well as that of our loved ones, and questions about morality, religion, and politics. But should the day come when Singapore ponders the viability and possibility of legalising assisted dying, evidence and public consensus should guide the public discussions in these difficult conversations.