Perspectives of Malaysian Medical and Legal Professionals: Evaluating Euthanasia Legalization

Abstract

Euthanasia, a highly contentious and emotionally charged subject, has become a focal point of significant public discourse. Its research encounters intense scrutiny and interest, far surpassing that of less controversial topics. The issue has ignited robust discussions among a wide array of stakeholders including academics, religious scholars, politicians, doctors, lawyers, and even nurses. This heightened attention is owed to its involvement in deliberately terminating human lives, albeit under compassionate circumstances and with the explicit consent of the individual. The primary aim of this study is to investigate the viewpoints of doctors and lawyers concerning euthanasia and its potential legalization in Malaysia. Employing established quantitative research methodologies, the study administered a survey to collect perspectives and opinions on euthanasia. The research cohort comprised 479 participants who completed the 21-item Euthanasia Attitude Scale (EAS) questionnaire. Data analysis, conducted through SPSS version 29.0, exhibited a commendable level of reliability across variables, with Cronbach's Alpha values standing at 0.857 for EAS and an impressive 0.952 for aspects pertaining to the legalization of euthanasia. Pearson's correlation outcomes, ranging from 0.570 to 0.642, indicated a moderate yet positive association between the independent variables and the dependent variable. Notably, 65.3% of respondents expressed opposition toward the legalization of euthanasia, citing reasons such as religious beliefs (63.0%), concerns regarding public corruption (62.2%), and a steadfast belief in the sanctity of human life, arguing against any authority to prematurely end it (57.8%). Conversely, 34.7% of participants advocated for the legalization of euthanasia, predominantly viewing it as a compassionate and humane method to alleviate the suffering of terminally ill individuals (57.8%). Despite the relatively limited sample size, these findings underscore the imperative of incorporating diverse perspectives in future euthanasia research endeavours. They highlight the enduring significance and intricate nature of this debate, stressing the need for a comprehensive and inclusive exploration of varied viewpoints to effectively navigate this multifaceted issue. Notably, even within the group opposing legalization, this study illuminates the enduring complexities intrinsic to discussions surrounding euthanasia.