Life, and Dignity in Death: Euthanasia Across Europe

Gayatri Brahmandam

Intern, Adichunchanagiri Institute of Medical Sciences

Keywords: Dignitas, Switzerland, euthanasia, suicide tourism

As healthcare workers, we are trained to recognize wounds that can be treated. The suffering that we cannot treat, however, often takes more from a patient’s spirit than a wound of the flesh ever could.

Consider the story of 104-year-old Australian scientist David Goodall, who in 2018 flew to Switzerland to end his life with medical assistance. Goodall was not terminally ill but believed his quality of life had irreversibly declined. Unable to pursue euthanasia in his home country, he turned to Dignitas, a clinic in Zurich that has become synonymous with what many call “suicide tourism” [1]. His final press conference, calm and even laced with humour, highlighted both the dignity and controversy that surround assisted dying.

A Brief History of Assisted Dying

The debate over euthanasia is hardly new. The word itself originates from the Greek “eu” (meaning “good”) and “thanatos” (meaning “death”), thus combining to form “eu thanatos,” which translates to “good death.” Modern debates gained momentum in the 20th century, with Switzerland legalizing assisted suicide in 1942 under the condition that it not be motivated by selfish interests [1]. This paved the way for organizations like Dignitas (founded in 1998) and Exit, which provide medically supervised assisted suicide, often to foreign nationals.

It is important to distinguish between physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia. In PAS, a physician prescribes a lethal dose of medication that the patient self-administers. Euthanasia, by contrast, involves the physician directly administering the life-ending intervention, usually by injection. Both remain controversial, but they carry different legal and ethical implications depending on where they are practiced [2].

Switzerland and the Rise of “Suicide Tourism”

Switzerland occupies a special place in the global debate. Because its laws do not require a person to be terminally ill to access assisted suicide, it has become a haven for those who cannot legally pursue such an option in their home countries [1]. Clinics like Dignitas attract hundreds of foreign patients annually. Critics argue that this commodifies death, while supporters insist it provides a compassionate option for those left with none at home.

Legal Landscapes: From Liberal to Prohibited

Globally, laws regulating euthanasia and assisted suicide vary dramatically. The Netherlands was the first country to fully legalize both practices in 2002, under strict conditions [3]. Belgium soon followed, even extending the option to minors. Canada legalized medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in 2016, later expanding eligibility beyond terminal illness [4].

By contrast, many countries in Asia and Africa maintain strict prohibitions. India, for example, only allows “passive euthanasia”, that is withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment under court approval, but continues to criminalize active euthanasia and assisted suicide [5].

Religion, Society, and Medical Ethics

Religion and cultural values play a decisive role in shaping end-of-life legislation. Catholicism, Islam, and Hinduism generally oppose euthanasia, viewing life as sacred and inviolable, while some interpretations of Buddhism emphasize compassion and alleviation of suffering [6].

From an ethical standpoint, the principles of beneficence (relieving suffering) and autonomy (respecting the patient’s wishes) often collide with non-maleficence (do no harm). For many clinicians, the dilemma is not academic but painfully real, especially when faced with patients enduring suffering medicine cannot ease.

A Global Patchwork

Euthanasia today reflects a patchwork of legal, cultural, and ethical boundaries. Switzerland’s clinics highlight the international demand for choice at life’s end, while countries like the Netherlands and Canada show what regulated legalization can look like. Meanwhile, large swathes of the world remain committed to prohibition.

The contrast raises a profound question: should the right to die be limited by geography? For patients like David Goodall, the answer involved crossing oceans. For others, the question remains hypothetical but is no less urgent.

Conclusion

Philosopher Francis Bacon, who first popularized the term “euthanasia” in the 17th century, described it as easing the passage of death rather than prolonging suffering. Centuries later, medicine is still grappling with where to draw the line.

Euthanasia remains one of the most contentious topics in healthcare, precisely because it cuts to the core of medicine’s dual role: to preserve life and to relieve suffering. Whether through Dignitas in Zurich, MAiD in Canada, or the quiet withdrawal of treatment in an Indian hospital, the question persists: how do we honour both life and maintain dignity in death?

References

1. Carrigan K. Sperling, D.suicide tourism: Understanding the legal, philosophical and socio‐political dimensions. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford university press. 2020. ISBN 978‐0‐19‐882545‐6. Sociol Health Illn [Internet]. 2020;42(8):1999–2000. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13151
2. Math SB, Chaturvedi SK. Euthanasia: Right to life vs right to die. Indian J Med Res. 2012;136(6):899–902.
3. Wikipedia. Euthanasia in the Netherlands. 2025. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands
4. Wikipedia. Euthanasia in Canada. 2025. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_Canada
5. Math SB, Murthy P. Euthanasia in India: International context. Indian J Psychiatry. 2023;65(3):245–9.
6. Mroz S, Dierickx S, Deliens L, Cohen J, Chambaere K. Assisted dying around the world: a status quaestionis. Ann Palliat Med. 2021;10(3):3540–53.