Euthanasia & Assisted Dying in the UK: A Guide for Medical School Interviews
Help for suicidal thoughts
If you're feeling like you want to end your life, it's important to tell someone. Help and support are available right now if you need them. You do not have to struggle with difficult feelings alone.
Phone a helpline
These free helplines are available to help when you're feeling down or in need. Unless otherwise stated, they're open 24 hours a day, every day.
You can also call these helplines for advice if you're worried about someone else.
NHS 111
Call 111 – 24 hours every day
Samaritans – for everyone
Call 116 123
Introduction
Euthanasia and assisted dying often feature in medical school interviews as classic ethics questions. Interviewers use this topic to assess your ethical reasoning, empathy, knowledge of the law, and ability to discuss sensitive issues calmly. It’s a delicate subject with many conflicting opinions, so it’s normal to feel unsure about how to approach it. In this comprehensive guide, we’ll cover what euthanasia and assisted dying mean, their legal status in the UK, the main arguments for and against, current developments, and tips on handling related interview questions. The goal is to help you understand this complex issue in simple terms and formulate a balanced, well-informed response – one that is formal but friendly in tone, as expected of a future medical professional.
What Do “Euthanasia” and “Assisted Dying” Mean?
Euthanasia generally means deliberately ending a person’s life to relieve suffering. For example, if a doctor gives a patient with a terminal illness a lethal dose of medication (one the patient doesn’t need for treatment) to intentionally cause death, that would be active euthanasia. By contrast, assisted suicide (often termed assisted dying in the UK debate) is deliberately helping another person end their own life, such as by providing them with lethal drugs that they take themselves. In assisted suicide, the final act is by the patient’s own hand, whereas in euthanasia the final act is carried out by someone else (for example, a physician).
It’s important to understand the terminology and types related to this topic:
Voluntary euthanasia: The person makes a conscious, voluntary request to end their life and someone (e.g. a doctor) helps them do so. This implies clear consent from the patient.
Non-voluntary euthanasia: The person cannot give consent (for example, an unconscious patient in a coma or someone who lacks capacity) and another individual makes a decision on their behalf to end their life, perhaps based on the patient’s previously expressed wishes or best interests. (For instance, if a patient had stated in an advance directive that they would want life-ending measures if in a certain condition.)
Involuntary euthanasia: Ending a person’s life against their will or without asking, despite them being capable of consent. In practice, this would be killing someone without consent – essentially murder, not something advocated in any medical context. Involuntary euthanasia is not part of the assisted dying debate – it is universally condemned.
Active euthanasia: Actively doing something to hasten death – for example, administering a lethal injection or a dose of drugs with the intention to cause death. “Euthanasia” in discussions usually refers to active euthanasia.
Passive euthanasia: Withdrawing or withholding treatments that are keeping someone alive, allowing them to die naturally from their illness. Examples might include turning off a life support machine or stopping a medication that is prolonging life. This term is a bit tricky – some argue it’s not truly “euthanasia” because the primary intention is not to kill but to cease interventions that are futile or unwanted. In medical practice, allowing a terminal patient to die by not initiating or continuing burdensome treatment (in line with their wishes or best interests) is generally considered ethically and legally acceptable. For instance, the UK Supreme Court in 2018 ruled that doctors can withdraw life-sustaining treatment (such as artificial nutrition and hydration) from patients in a permanent vegetative state without needing court approval, as long as clinical guidelines are followed. This kind of decision is viewed as letting the disease take its course, not as killing the patient.
Assisted dying is a broader term that, in public debate, often encompasses both physician-assisted suicide and sometimes euthanasia. Advocates for legal change in the UK usually focus on assisted dying for mentally competent, terminally ill adults, meaning a doctor could prescribe life-ending medication for a dying patient to take themselves (similar to assisted suicide) under strict safeguards, rather than a doctor directly administering a lethal injection. It’s worth noting that the choice of terminology can reflect viewpoints: those who favour changing the law often prefer the phrase “assisted dying” (seeing it as a compassionate assistance for the dying), whereas opponents might refer to “assisted suicide” to emphasize the act of suicide, or simply “euthanasia” for any form of deliberately ending life. In an interview, it’s wise to show you understand what each term means and use them carefully. For clarity: this guide will use “assisted dying” to refer to the general concept of medical assistance in bringing about death at a patient’s request, and will specify “euthanasia” or “assisted suicide” where necessary.
Legal Status of Euthanasia & Assisted Dying in the UK
Both euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal in the United Kingdom. In England and Wales, assisting or encouraging someone’s suicide is a criminal offence under Section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961, punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment. (Suicide itself was decriminalised in 1961, so attempting to take one’s own life is not a crime – but helping someone else to do so is a serious crime.) Euthanasia – for example, a doctor actively ending a patient’s life by injection – is considered either murder or manslaughter depending on the circumstances, since it involves an intentional act causing death. The maximum penalty for murder in the UK is life imprisonment. In Scotland, there is no specific statute like the Suicide Act, but assisting someone’s death or performing euthanasia would be prosecuted under homicide laws (murder or culpable homicide). Similarly, in Northern Ireland the law is in line with England and Wales (assisting suicide is illegal, mirroring the 1961 Act). In short, under current UK law a doctor (or anyone) who intentionally helps end another person’s life can face serious criminal charges.
It’s important to distinguish these illegal practices from lawful end-of-life care: for instance, a doctor may administer high doses of pain relief to a dying patient even if it may unintentionally shorten the patient’s life – this is permitted under the doctrine of double effect (the intention is to relieve pain, not to cause death). Likewise, withdrawing life-prolonging treatment with patient consent or in their best interests is legal. But actively causing death or providing the means for a patient to do so remains against the law in the UK.
Because of the legal ban, some terminally ill Britons travel abroad to countries where assisted dying is lawful. For example, Switzerland permits assisted suicide under certain conditions (through organizations like Dignitas), and in 2018 at least 43 people from the UK ended their lives at Swiss clinics such as Dignitas, since they could not do so at home. These cases highlight the poignant reality that patients who want control over their dying process must go overseas, often at great financial and emotional cost. Their families or friends who help facilitate the travel can face legal uncertainty on return. In England, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has issued guidelines that each case of assisted suicide will be evaluated individually – factors like compassion, the person’s clear wish to die, and motives of the helper are considered in deciding whether to prosecute. This policy came about after cases like Debbie Purdy’s, which prompted clarification of the law. However, it’s not a guarantee against prosecution, and the law itself has not changed – it’s essentially an “enforcement discretion”, not a legal permission.
Current Debates and Developments
The legal status of assisted dying is under active debate in the UK, and it’s crucial to be aware of this current context. In recent years there have been multiple attempts to change the law, reflecting shifting public and professional attitudes. Notably, in 2015 Parliament debated an Assisted Dying Bill that would have allowed physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients with six months to live, but MPs overwhelmingly rejected it (by 330 votes to 118). This indicated strong opposition at that time. However, momentum has grown since. In 2021, the British Medical Association (BMA) – which represents doctors – dropped its long-standing opposition to assisted dying and adopted a neutral stance after a close internal vote (49% in favour of neutrality, 48% against). This was a significant shift, signaling that the medical community is divided and open to debate on the issue. Around the same time, the Royal College of Physicians also moved to a neutral position, after finding no clear majority among its members for or against legalization.
Public opinion in the UK has shown majority support for allowing assisted dying in some form. Surveys in the past few years have consistently found that most Britons (around 65–75%) support legalising assisted dying for terminally ill adults under strict conditions. For example, a 2023 Ipsos MORI poll reported about 65% of the public believe doctors should be able to assist a patient who is mentally competent and terminally ill (with less than six months to live) to end their life. Support for allowing doctors themselves to administer life-ending medication (voluntary euthanasia) is also above 60% in polls. Of course, public opinion doesn’t make the law, but it adds pressure on lawmakers to revisit the issue.
Indeed, Parliament is currently considering a new Assisted Dying Bill. In October 2024, MP Kim Leadbeater introduced the “Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill” – a Private Member’s Bill aimed at legalising assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults in England and Wales, with robust safeguards. The bill’s proposal is to allow patients predicted to have less than 6 months to live, and who meet strict criteria (verified by two independent doctors and a High Court judge or panel), to receive medical assistance to end their life if they so wish. In a notable development, the government allowed MPs a free vote (suspending the usual party-line collective responsibility) on this issue, underscoring that this is seen as a matter of conscience. In **November 2024, the House of Commons voted to approve the bill at its Second Reading by 330 votes to 275 – a closer result than the 2015 vote and the first time an assisted dying bill has progressed. The bill went through detailed committee scrutiny in early 2025, with numerous amendments added (for example, replacing High Court approval with an “Assisted Dying Review Panel” of medical, legal, and social work professionals to assess requests). As of mid/late 2025, the bill is still under debate: it completed Commons stages and has gone to the House of Lords for further scrutiny. It is not law yet – and its future is uncertain – but the fact it has advanced so far is itself historic.
In addition to Westminster, devolved jurisdictions and neighbouring islands have seen developments. The Scottish Parliament has been debating its own Assisted Dying Bill (for Scotland) simultaneously. And in a landmark move, in March 2025 the Isle of Man’s Parliament (Tynwald) became the first in the British Isles to approve legislation legalising assisted dying. (The Isle of Man is a Crown dependency with autonomy over its laws – this change doesn’t affect the UK directly, but it is a significant precedent close to home.) Jersey has also been exploring the possibility of an assisted dying law. All this shows that the landscape is changing. By the time you have your interview, it’s wise to check the very latest status – but at present (late 2025), assisted dying is still illegal in the UK, and any change would require new legislation to come into force. Interviewers will not expect you to know all the minute details of the parliamentary process, but demonstrating awareness that “this is a current and evolving issue” – for example, mentioning that “there is a bill in Parliament right now being debated” – will show that you’re keeping up with medical and legal news.
Ethical Principles and Key Arguments
Questions about euthanasia and assisted dying are fundamentally ethical dilemmas. They involve conflicts between core principles in medical ethics and personal values. Here we break down the major arguments in favour and against assisted dying, and the ethical principles that underpin them. Remember, as a candidate you are not required to take a extremist stance; in fact, showing that you understand both sides of the debate and the complexity is key. Here are the main considerations:
Arguments in Favour of Legalising Assisted Dying
Proponents of allowing some form of assisted dying often argue from the standpoint of compassion, autonomy, and dignity:
Relief of Suffering (Compassion): The primary motivation is to end unbearable suffering. No matter how excellent palliative care may be, some terminally ill patients experience intolerable pain or distress that cannot be fully relieved. Advocates say it can be more humane and compassionate to permit a peaceful, physician-assisted death in such cases, rather than prolong suffering against the person’s wishes. Essentially, it could be seen as an act of mercy to help someone avoid needless agony.
Autonomy and Personal Choice: Autonomy is one of the four fundamental pillars of medical ethics – it means respecting a patient’s right to make decisions about their own life and body. Supporters argue that this principle extends to decisions about one’s own death: a mentally competent adult should have the right to choose when and how to end their life if they are suffering with no hope of recovery. For some, being able to **“die with dignity” at a time of their choosing is part of having control over their life. They argue that forcing someone to continue living in great pain against their will undermines personal freedom and bodily autonomy.
Quality of Life vs. Quantity of Life: Proponents often distinguish between merely being alive and truly living. If medical treatments can no longer restore a patient to a life they find meaningful or bearable, then prolonging life at all costs may not be in their best interests. They suggest that a shorter life free of extreme suffering might be better than a prolonged life of torment – i.e. quality of life matters more than sheer quantity of days. This ties into compassion and autonomy: the individual is the best judge of what level of quality of life is acceptable to them.
Dignity: The term “death with dignity” comes up frequently. Supporters say patients should be able to avoid scenarios they feel are undignified (such as extreme loss of bodily function, complete dependence, or cognitive collapse in their final days). Allowing assisted dying gives an option to prevent a protracted, degrading dying process that the person desperately wishes to avoid.
Preventing Desperate Measures: When assisted dying is illegal, some people might resort to ending their life alone or in violent ways, or may attempt suicide without medical guidance, which can lead to trauma or failure, leaving them in an even worse state. Legalising a monitored form of assisted dying could prevent such tragic outcomes by providing a safe, regulated pathway. It’s similar to arguments made about legalising abortion decades ago – that people will seek a way to do it regardless, so it’s safer to have a legal framework than to drive it underground.
Traveling Abroad vs. Dying at Home: As mentioned, patients currently have to travel to places like Switzerland to exercise this choice, if they can afford it. Advocates point out this is not only unfair (those without means cannot do the same), but also cruel – people are effectively exiled to die abroad, away from home and family, often earlier than they would want (since they must be well enough to travel). If assisted dying were legal in the UK, people wouldn’t have to take that drastic step. In one year, dozens of Britons made that final journey to Dignitas because the option wasn’t available here. Many would prefer to spend their last moments at home with loved ones rather than in a foreign clinic.
Public Support and Democracy: As noted, a majority of the public appears to support assisted dying in specific circumstances. In a democracy, one could argue that laws should reflect the values and wishes of society, provided appropriate safeguards are in place. Advocates thus contend that Parliament ought to respond to this public sentiment (while of course balancing minority concerns).
Peace of Mind (“Psychological Insurance”): Interestingly, some argue that just knowing the option is available can provide great comfort to dying patients – even if they end up not using it. In places like Oregon (USA), many terminally ill patients who obtain life-ending medication never actually take it; but having the prescription gives them peace of mind that they have an “escape” if things become truly unbearable. This relief of anxiety is a benefit in itself. In the UK, if the law changed, some patients might similarly find comfort simply in knowing they have control, whether or not they exercise the option.
Ethical Consistency and Honesty: Some supporters claim that allowing assisted dying would make end-of-life care more honest and transparent. Currently, doctors might sedate a patient heavily or increase morphine to alleviate suffering (which can hasten death) – this is legal as a side effect (the double effect principle). Rather than this indirect approach, an assisted dying law could create a clear, openly regulated process for those specific cases, arguably with better oversight. In other words, we may already be doing things that edge toward ending life (like withdrawing treatment or giving high-dose opioids), so it could be more ethical to have a frank legal mechanism for when a patient explicitly wants to die. Some doctors have expressed that a new law would provide a clearer framework for managing end-of-life decisions, rather than stretching existing practices.
Examples from Other Countries: Several other countries have legalised assisted dying, and advocates often point to their experiences. For instance, Oregon’s “Death with Dignity Act” (in the United States) has been in operation since 1997. After initial reservations, even some hospice organizations in Oregon acknowledged that the law did not undermine end-of-life care or lead to abuse of vulnerable people. Likewise, in places like the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, and parts of Australia, assisted dying or euthanasia has been legal for years with what supporters say are effective safeguards. They argue that the UK can learn from these models to craft a safe law. (A quick note: Euthanasia – doctor-administered lethal injection – is legal in Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Canada, Colombia, New Zealand, and some Australian states. Physician-assisted suicide is legal in several U.S. states (like Oregon, Washington, etc.), and countries like Switzerland, Germany, and Austria under various conditions. Proponents use these examples to show it is feasible to allow assisted dying without the dire consequences opponents fear.)
Arguments Against Legalising Assisted Dying
Opponents of euthanasia and assisted dying raise serious concerns grounded in ethics, practical implications, and the role of doctors. Here are the key arguments against changing the law:
Sanctity of Life: A core argument is that human life is inherently valuable and should not be deliberately ended. Many hold a moral or religious belief in the “sanctity of life,” meaning that life is sacred and only natural death should occur. From this view, intentionally causing death – even to alleviate suffering – is fundamentally wrong. It’s said that doctors should save lives, not take them, and crossing that line could erode respect for life.
“Do No Harm” – The Medical Ethos: Doctors swear to “first, do no harm” (non-maleficence). Some argue that participating in euthanasia would turn doctors from healers into “executioners”, betraying the Hippocratic Oath’s spirit. The act of killing a patient, even for merciful reasons, could be seen as the ultimate harm. (Proponents counter that prolonging suffering is also harm, so this principle cuts both ways – but the traditional interpretation is that doctors must not intentionally cause death.) Many healthcare professionals feel uneasy about being asked to intentionally end life, which runs counter to their training.
The Slippery Slope: Perhaps the most common worry is that even a very limited assisted dying law could expand or be abused over time – the so-called “slippery slope” argument. Opponents point to examples like Belgium, which now allows euthanasia for children in certain cases, or the Netherlands, where eligibility has broadened (including some cases of non-terminal illnesses like severe psychiatric illness or “completed life” requests in the elderly). They fear that what starts as a tightly controlled option for terminally ill adults could gradually extend to other groups: people with non-terminal but disabling conditions, those with mental illnesses, or even minors and vulnerable individuals. This is seen as an erosion of safeguards: once society accepts that some lives can be ended intentionally, the boundary might keep shifting. The mere possibility of this happening makes opponents very wary.
Protecting the Vulnerable: A critical concern is the potential for pressure or abuse. Even with safeguards, it might be impossible to ensure that every request for assisted dying is truly voluntary and free from subtle coercion. Elderly, disabled, or terminally ill patients might feel they are a “burden” on family or society and feel pressured (even unintentionally) to opt for an earlier death. Relatives (perhaps with inheritance interests) could encourage someone to consider euthanasia. Society might start to send a message that “if you’re severely ill or disabled, your life is less worth living.” Opponents argue that no safeguard can 100% rule out these pressures – **some people might choose death not wholly because they want it, but because they feel others want it for them. This could especially affect those who are vulnerable, lack a strong advocate, or feel guilt about care costs and strain. Disability rights groups in the UK have often opposed assisted dying on these grounds, fearing it will subtly tell disabled people that suicide is expected of them if life gets hard. Maintaining a blanket prohibition, they argue, is the only way to protect people from exploitation or internalised pressure.
Undermining Palliative Care: There’s concern that legalising assisted dying might undermine the development and provision of palliative care (specialised end-of-life care focused on comfort). If an easier option is to prescribe life-ending drugs, will healthcare systems invest less in high-quality hospice and palliative services? Opponents worry that it could become a “cost-saving” shortcut in a resource-strapped system. They emphasize that the priority should be improving palliative care so that no patient feels their suffering is unbearable. In fact, the UK is known for having excellent palliative care in general; critics of assisted dying say we should build on that strength rather than introduce euthanasia. There’s also a fear that doctors might unconsciously offer the assisted dying route to patients as a solution if they are overworked – which ties into the next point about trust.
Doctor–Patient Relationship and Trust: Introducing assisted dying could change how patients view doctors. Currently, patients trust that doctors are wholeheartedly focused on caring for them and prolonging life when possible. If doctors could also facilitate death, some patients (especially vulnerable ones) might fear that the doctor might not “fight” for their life, or might suggest the easy way out. This could damage the trust that “doctor will always try to do what’s best for me to keep me alive and comfortable.” Opponents often cite anecdotes from other countries: for example, reports from Canada where some patients felt pressured when doctors broached the topic of assisted death. Even if unintended, just knowing it’s an option could plant doubt in patients’ minds about their doctors’ intentions. Maintaining a clear line that doctors do not kill patients can preserve that trust.
No Right to Demand Death: Ethically and legally, patients currently have the right to refuse treatment, but they do not have a right to demand a particular treatment from doctors – especially not one that is currently illegal, like a lethal dose. Some argue that even under autonomy, one’s right to autonomy does not obligate someone else to directly cause your death. Doctors can morally object; they are healers, not mere service providers for any patient request. Even if assisted dying were legal, many doctors would likely refuse to participate (and any law would almost certainly have conscientious objection provisions). So opponents say it’s not just about patient choice, but also doctor choice and ethics – forcing or expecting doctors to partake in ending life can conflict with their personal and professional ethics.
Uncertainty in Prognoses: A practical point is that doctors cannot predict exactly how long someone has to live in many cases. Terminal prognoses of “6 months” can be wrong – people may live much longer or occasionally recover unexpectedly. If assisted dying is offered on the basis of a prognosis, there’s a risk of error: someone who might have lived years longer could die prematurely. There are cases of patients outliving their terminal diagnoses by years, even achieving meaningful experiences in that time. Opponents ask: what if a cure or new treatment is found, or the prognosis was mistaken? Legalising assisted dying might cut short lives that could have been lived. (Proponents respond that safeguards and second opinions mitigate this, but the uncertainty remains a concern.)
Irreversibility of Mistakes: Taking a life is irreversible. If a doctor or patient makes a mistake – for example, a patient feels pressured, or is depressed and requesting death but might have changed their mind – there’s no undoing it. The consequences of an error are fatal. Opponents weigh this heavily: better to err on the side of caution (preserving life) than risk even a few wrongful deaths. They argue the potential harms outweigh the benefits – even if only a small number of people might be adversely affected (pressured or erroneously helped to die), that cost is too high to justify enabling others to end their lives a bit easier. Society has a duty to protect life, especially of the vulnerable, and that should take precedence.
Existing Alternatives: Those against assisted dying emphasize that instead of helping people die, we should ensure no one feels so desperate to ask for it. This means providing top-quality pain management, hospice care, psychological support, and perhaps options like sedation for refractory symptoms (sometimes called “palliative sedation”). They argue that with compassionate care, symptoms can be managed and patients can be supported through the natural dying process. In other words, rather than changing the law to accommodate what might be a cry for help, we should improve care and address pain, depression, or other issues that lead to such requests. If patients are properly cared for, the argument goes, very few would truly want to end their lives prematurely. (It’s worth noting, however, that in places where assisted dying is legal, some patients choose it not due to lack of pain relief, but due to loss of autonomy or fear of future suffering – nonetheless, this point is central in opposition arguments.)
Moral and Religious Objections: Although not everyone opposing euthanasia is religious, many faith traditions (such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.) prohibit taking life. A candidate might mention that some individuals’ opposition is rooted in religious or moral beliefs – for instance, the belief that only God should decide when life ends, or that suffering has spiritual meaning. While you yourself need not subscribe to these beliefs, acknowledging their presence in society shows cultural awareness. In an interview, you could note that different people bring different values – some patients or families may strongly oppose euthanasia on moral grounds, and a doctor must respect that perspective as well.
In summary, the case against assisted dying centers on the value of life, the duty of care, and protecting those at risk of harm. Opponents essentially say: we understand the compassionate impulse, but the risks and consequences of legalization are too dangerous to justify it. They prefer investing in palliative care and preserving a clear ethos that doctors do not intentionally end lives.
Balancing the Ethical Debate
As a medical school applicant, you are not expected to solve this debate or have a perfect answer. In fact, interviewers are more interested in how you think through the problem than which side you personally lean toward. It’s absolutely fine to have a personal viewpoint (most people do), but you must also show that you appreciate the valid concerns of the opposite side. In practice, doctors often have to navigate patients’ wishes and legal/ethical boundaries, sometimes putting aside their own feelings.
You might find it helpful to explicitly mention the four principles of medical ethics – Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, and Justice – and how they relate to this issue:
Autonomy: Supports respecting patient choice (favouring assisted dying in cases of informed, voluntary requests).
Beneficence: The duty to do good – could support assisted dying if it is perceived as benefiting the patient by relieving suffering, or oppose it if one believes keeping the patient alive is a greater good.
Non-Maleficence: “Do no harm” – could argue that killing is the ultimate harm, or conversely that allowing extreme suffering is a harm. It shows the tension in interpretation.
Justice: Consider fairness and implications for society, including how laws apply to everyone and protecting vulnerable groups (justice concerns often underlie the slippery slope and coercion arguments).
Using this framework demonstrates a structured approach. For example, you might say: “This is a conflict between autonomy – the patient’s right to choose – and non-maleficence – the doctor’s duty not to harm. Beneficence and compassion pull us toward relieving suffering, but justice and protecting the vulnerable make us cautious about changing the law.” This kind of analysis will show interviewers you can think like a compassionate, thoughtful clinician.
Discussing Euthanasia & Assisted Dying in a Medical School Interview
When faced with a question about euthanasia or assisted dying, it’s normal to feel a bit intimidated. Here are some tips to help you structure your answer and demonstrate the qualities interviewers are looking for:
Stay Calm and Objective: First, take a brief moment to collect your thoughts. The topic can be emotional, but your tone should remain measured and professional. Avoid overly emotional language or strong rhetoric. Even if you have a personal stance, present it reasonably and acknowledge the issue’s complexity.
Define the Terms: It’s often wise to start by clarifying what the terms mean (just as we did above). For example, “By euthanasia I understand it to mean X… and assisted dying refers to Y…”. This shows the interviewer you have a clear grasp of the basics and avoids any confusion.
Mention the Legal Position: Demonstrating knowledge of the current law is important for UK medical applicants. You should clearly state (as part of your answer) that “currently, both euthanasia and assisting suicide are illegal in the UK”. You might briefly note the possible punishment or that it’s considered murder or assisted suicide under the lawnhs.uknhs.uk. This grounds your discussion in reality – a future doctor must abide by the law and understand it. You can also mention any recent developments (“there is ongoing debate and a bill in Parliament, though it’s not law at this time”) to show awareness.
Acknowledge Both Sides: A strong answer will present arguments for and against in a balanced way. Even if the question asks, “Do you agree with euthanasia?” you should not simply say “Yes, because…” or “No, because…” and stop. Instead, consider phrasing like: “It’s a very difficult issue. On one hand, I can see that… [pro-side]. On the other hand, we have to consider… [con-side].” This two-sided approach shows you can appreciate different perspectives, which is a crucial skill in medicine. Use phrases like “supporters argue that… however, others are concerned that…”. This also demonstrates empathy – you’re considering the feelings of patients who want this option and the worries of those who fear its consequences.
Use Ethical Principles and Examples: As discussed, referencing autonomy, compassion, “do no harm”, and so forth will earn you credit as it shows structured thinking. You can also briefly cite an example or two: e.g., “We know some people, like those who went to Dignitas in Switzerland, felt they had no choice under our law. That evokes sympathy for changing the law. But we also have examples from places like Belgium where the scope widened to include euthanasia for children, which worries people about where to draw the line.” Using such examples (without getting lost in too much detail) shows you’re informed.
Express Your Position (If Asked Directly): Often interviewers will ask “What do you think? Would you personally participate in assisted dying if it were legal?” This can be tricky. You should be honest, but also demonstrate open-mindedness and professionalism. It’s acceptable to say you haven’t decided your personal stance completely – that itself shows you appreciate how complex it is. For instance: “Personally, I have reservations because… [e.g., it goes against my instinct as a trainee doctor to end a life]. However, I empathise deeply with patients in terrible suffering and I understand why some doctors and members of the public support it. If it were legal and considered ethical by the profession, I would very carefully consider each case and my own conscience.” Alternatively, if you do lean toward one side, express it gently and always mention respecting the law and patients’ viewpoints. For example: “I think if strict safeguards are in place, my inclination is that respecting patient autonomy in extreme cases can be the right thing. But I would only act within whatever the law and professional guidance allow, and I’d ensure patients had fully explored other options like palliative care.” Essentially, avoid extreme language (“definitely I’d do it” or “never under any circumstance!”) and show that you would seek guidance, support, and consider each situation carefully. It’s fine to show a bit of personal reflection, e.g., “I find it an uncomfortable idea, but I recognise my duty is to patients’ welfare and wishes. It’s something I’d continuously reflect on and discuss with colleagues if it became part of practice.” This shows maturity and self-awareness.
Highlight the Importance of Communication and Care: In any answer, make sure to emphasize that regardless of the law, as a doctor your role is to support patients compassionately. If a patient asked about assisted dying (which can happen even today since it’s in the news), you should say you’d listen to them, find out why they feel that way, ensure they have the best care and pain relief, involve palliative specialists, maybe a psychologist or chaplain, etc. – showing that you wouldn’t dismiss their distress even though you cannot legally hasten death. This patient-centered approach is crucial. You might add: “Even if I can’t provide euthanasia, I would do everything possible to alleviate their suffering and make sure they don’t feel abandoned.” Interviewers love to see empathy and commitment to care.
Conclude Thoughtfully: If time, end your answer with a concise summary or personal note that wraps it up. For example: “In summary, euthanasia and assisted dying pose a conflict between relieving suffering and protecting life. It’s not a question with a simple right or wrong answer. As a future doctor, I will have to navigate within the law and ethical guidelines, always prioritising compassionate care. Whether or not the law changes by the time I practice, I hope to support patients at end of life by listening to their wishes and ensuring they die with dignity, whatever that means in each case.” This kind of closing statement can leave a strong positive impression – it shows you have considered the nuance and will be a doctor who thinks deeply about ethical challenges.
Example Medical School Interview Questions on Euthanasia & Assisted Dying
To further help you prepare, here are 10 example questions that medical schools might ask to probe your understanding of euthanasia and assisted dying. It’s a good exercise to practice answering these. Remember to use the principles and facts we’ve discussed, and keep your answers structured, balanced, and empathetic:
“What do the terms euthanasia and assisted suicide mean? How do they differ?” – (Definition question testing if you know the basics.)
“Describe the current legal position on euthanasia and assisted dying in the UK.” – (Testing factual knowledge of the law – e.g., it’s illegal, Suicide Act 1961, etc.)
“Do you think euthanasia should be legalised in the UK? Why or why not?” – (A direct opinion question – remember to give both sides and your reasoned stance.)
“Explain some ethical principles involved in the assisted dying debate. How do autonomy and ‘do no harm’ come into play?” – (Looking for mention of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, etc., and understanding the conflict between them.)
“If a terminally ill patient asked you, as their doctor, to help them end their life, how would you respond?” – (A scenario to test empathy, communication, and ethics: discuss listening, exploring why, offering all legal alternatives like palliative care, and the fact you cannot actively help due to law.)
“What alternatives can doctors offer to patients who are suffering greatly at the end of their life, aside from euthanasia?” – (Looking for knowledge of palliative care, pain management, hospice support, counseling, perhaps palliative sedation, etc.)
“Why might some people support assisted dying and others oppose it? Give me a few key arguments on each side.” – (Tests your understanding of the pros and cons – essentially the arguments we outlined earlier.)
“How is withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (for example, turning off a ventilator) different from euthanasia, or is it the same?” – (Examines whether you understand the concept of passive euthanasia and intention, and legal distinctions.)
“Are you aware of any recent developments or cases in the UK regarding assisted dying?” – (An opportunity to mention the current Assisted Dying Bill in Parliament, the BMA’s neutral stance, public opinion polls, or notable legal cases like those who went to court or to Dignitas. This checks if you stay updated with medical news.)
“What are your personal thoughts on physicians being involved in ending a patient’s life? How would you reconcile your personal values with your professional duties if the law changed?” – (A deeper personal ethics question. They want to see reflection, honesty, but also that you’d prioritize patient welfare and law. There’s no “right” answer, but they’re looking at your reasoning and integrity.)
By studying the definitions, legal context, ethical arguments, and practicing questions like these, you’ll be well-prepared to discuss euthanasia and assisted dying in your medical school interviews. Always aim to be calm, thoughtful, and compassionate in your answers. Interviewers aren’t looking for a particular opinion, but rather evidence of your understanding, sensitivity, and ethical reasoning – all crucial qualities for a future doctor. Good luck!
