A philosophical and legal examination of euthanasia, assisted dying, human dignity and personal freedom. A dialogue between Homo-Naturalis and Diotima on the right to choose one’s own end.
The Human Right to Choose One’s Own End
Let us turn today to a subject that touches the deepest boundaries of human existence: euthanasia, assisted dying, and the right of a person to decide when life itself has become unbearable.
An old friend and long-time reader has written to us. His letter is brief, but it contains a question of enormous moral weight.
He asks for our opinion on euthanasia.
His fundamental position is expressed clearly:
“I know it, and I do not question it: I have the moral right to assist a fellow human being—and especially a very close friend of mine—to put an end to his life, since he himself wishes this because of an incurable illness and unbearable suffering.
My question is this: how can I assist his departure without facing criminal consequences, since his financial situation does not allow him to travel abroad, where he could legally put an end to this torment?”
My friend,
I understand you completely.
The anguish behind your question is not theoretical. It is the anguish of someone who stands beside another human being watching suffering reach a point where ordinary words lose their meaning.
Our views on this matter have already been expressed here, and not only once.
For reference, we recall passages from an article published on Homo-Naturalis.gr on 24 April 2025, entitled:
“Fortunately… there is no longer any room for me here. It is not a complaint; it is liberation.”
The citizen — or rather, the subject, since modern states often treat people as subjects rather than true citizens — is today bound in countless ways.
The individual is not even allowed to manage his own death when existence has reached its most painful and unbearable stage.
Nor is he always allowed to control his own suffering through the medical relief that could ease the final moments of his journey.
Not long ago, we witnessed the case of the courageous Greek journalist Alexandros Vellios, who openly prepared to leave life through euthanasia.
He defended with remarkable courage the view that every human being should possess the right to choose death when illness has reached an irreversible and intolerable condition.
And he did not merely speak.
He did not offer a comfortable theory from a safe distance, as so many people do when they preach about principles they never personally test.
He gave his own life as testimony.
He confirmed his beliefs through his own final decision.
I would not apply to an assisted-dying clinic and wait for my “appointment” to die, if I ever reached such a decision.
There are many reasons.
One of them — though certainly not the most important — is financial.
I do not possess the wealth required to travel to Switzerland and pay for the procedures offered by the institutions that provide assisted dying there.
And I imagine that such options are not available to every ordinary person.
But even if I had unlimited financial means, I would still hesitate.
Because there is something deeply troubling about having to request permission — receiving approval from authorities — in order to end one’s own existence.
We have allowed the state, institutions, and above all religious authorities, to stand between the individual and the most personal decision imaginable.
They claim authority over everything.
Even over the final moment that belongs most intimately to a person: death.
The individual is controlled during life and expected to remain obedient even at the threshold of death.
A permanent subject.
A person without full ownership of himself.
But I would not grant them this privilege.
I would not submit an official application, receive a registration number, and wait for an institution — public or private — to decide whether I am allowed to end my own life.
Never.
I alone am responsible for my existence.
I alone have the ultimate authority to manage my own life.
And by the same principle, however, I do not possess the right to dictate to others how they should live or how they should die.
The right to life and the right to death are deeply personal rights.
They belong to the individual.
They are not privileges granted by governments, religious authorities, or social institutions.
And if authorities abuse their power by attempting to control even this most intimate human decision, then at the very least we must refuse to surrender to them the right to define the manner in which we leave this world.
Because while they often prevent us from living as freely as we wish, they should not also determine how we must face death.
The only circumstance in which a person has a legitimate reason to end his or her own life — a reason that no external authority has the moral right to deny — is when life itself has become an unbearable burden.
When existence has ceased to be a meaningful human life because it no longer allows a person to experience dignity, consciousness, autonomy, and the essential elements that make life worth living.
Such circumstances are specific:
A severe and incurable illness accompanied by unbearable suffering.
A devastating disability that completely destroys personal independence.
A condition in which a person loses the ability to perform even the most basic human functions.
A state of existence marked by humiliation, irreversible deterioration, and the complete loss of personal dignity.
Similar considerations may apply to extreme situations of captivity or hostage-taking, when a person is subjected to torture and the deliberate destruction of what it means to remain human.
However, the deepest problem appears in those cases where a person meets all the conditions that would make death an understandable and rational choice, but is unable to act.
Perhaps because of physical weakness.
Perhaps because illness has taken away his ability to make decisions.
Perhaps because he no longer has contact with his environment.
Perhaps because he lacks the practical ability to carry out his own decision.
In such cases, assisted dying becomes a serious necessity.
The involvement of another person in ending life — whether through a legal framework established by society or through the decision and responsibility of those closest to the suffering individual — becomes the central ethical question.
And because nobody knows what fate awaits them tomorrow, it is reasonable for every person, while still healthy and mentally capable, to express their wishes clearly regarding the possibility of assisted dying in the future.
This is not only a matter of personal freedom.
It is also an act of responsibility toward loved ones.
No family member should be forced to carry the unbearable psychological and legal burden of making such a decision alone.
A clear statement of personal wishes, expressed while a person is fully conscious and capable of judgment, can prevent uncertainty and protect those left behind”.
Diotima’s Response: The Legal Reality of Euthanasia and Assisted Dying
My friend,
Your question, however, is not only philosophical.
It is also legal.
And here the answer is far more precise.
Under the current Greek legal system, neither euthanasia nor assisted suicide is legally recognized as a lawful practice.
Therefore, a person who actively participates in causing another person’s death — even when acting out of compassion, even when the patient has explicitly requested it, and even when the intention is to end unbearable suffering — may face serious criminal consequences.
A noble motive does not automatically transform an unlawful act into a lawful one.
Compassion may influence how a court evaluates a case.
But it does not, by itself, remove legal responsibility.
There is, however, an important distinction.
Modern medical ethics recognizes the right of a competent patient to refuse medical treatment.
A person may decide not to undergo procedures that merely prolong biological existence without offering meaningful recovery or improvement.
Allowing an illness to follow its natural course is legally and ethically different from actively causing death.
The first respects the patient’s autonomy.
The second raises a completely different legal and moral question.
The debate over euthanasia therefore reflects one of the deepest conflicts of our time:
The autonomy of the individual versus the duty of society to protect human life.
Those who support assisted dying argue that human dignity requires allowing individuals to decide when suffering has become unbearable and irreversible.
Those who oppose it fear that transforming death into a medical service may create dangers, especially for vulnerable people who might feel pressure to choose death because of age, disability, illness, or social circumstances.
Both concerns deserve serious consideration.
Neither side should be dismissed through slogans.
A democratic society must discuss euthanasia with seriousness, compassion, and intellectual honesty.
Not through religious condemnation.
Not through emotional manipulation.
Not through fear.
The essential questions are:
Who owns a person’s life?
Who has authority over unbearable suffering?
How can individual freedom be protected without exposing vulnerable people to abuse?
These are not simple questions.
They belong among the greatest ethical challenges of modern civilization.
For the time being, however, the practical legal answer in Greece remains clear:
A person who actively assists another human being to die cannot currently do so without exposing himself or herself to serious criminal risk, regardless of the compassion or motives behind the action.
Whether this legal framework should change is a matter for democratic debate and legislative decision.
It cannot be resolved through private acts, however understandable the intentions behind them may be.
Perhaps the deepest question behind euthanasia is not simply whether a person has the right to die.
It is whether a human being truly possesses himself.
If society recognizes an individual’s freedom to make choices about education, relationships, beliefs, and personal identity, then the final question inevitably appears:
Does that freedom end at the threshold of death?
A civilized society must protect life.
But it must also understand suffering.
Between the absolute protection of life and the absolute freedom of the individual lies the difficult territory of human dignity.
And perhaps there, in that fragile space between compassion and responsibility, humanity is called upon to make its most difficult decisions.