In light of the recent case involving the 28-year-old Dutch woman who chose to end her life due to her struggles with depression, autism and personality disorder, it is crucial to not only address the concerns surrounding euthanasia but also to explore potential solutions to prevent similar tragedies in the future. The decision to end one's life, especially in the context of mental illness, raises profound concerns and ethical dilemmas that cannot be overlooked. While advocates of euthanasia argue for the right to autonomy and relief from unbearable suffering, it is essential to approach such cases with utmost caution and sensitivity.

In light of the recent case involving the 28-year-old Dutch woman who chose to end her life due to her struggles with depression, autism and personality disorder, it is crucial to not only address the concerns surrounding euthanasia but also to explore potential solutions to prevent similar tragedies in the future. The decision to end one's life, especially in the context of mental illness, raises profound concerns and ethical dilemmas that cannot be overlooked. While advocates of euthanasia argue for the right to autonomy and relief from unbearable suffering, it is essential to approach such cases with utmost caution and sensitivity.

As a mental health professional, my perspective on whether euthanasia should be legal stems from a deep understanding of the complexities surrounding end-of-life decisions, mental health, and ethical principles. First and foremost, I believe that legalising euthanasia could potentially undermine the trust and sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship. In my view, the role of health care professionals should be centred around providing compassionate care, support, and treatment options aimed at improving quality of life and alleviating suffering, rather than offering death as a solution. Permitting euthanasia might inadvertently shift focus away from providing comprehensive mental health care and support to individuals grappling with terminal illness or unbearable suffering.

Moreover, legalising euthanasia raises significant ethical concerns, particularly regarding autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence. While autonomy is a fundamental ethical principle, it must be considered within the context of ensuring that individuals are making well-informed decisions free from coercion or undue influence. Euthanasia, as a permanent and irreversible action, carries inherent risks and potential for abuse, especially among those with mental illness or disabilities. As a psychiatrist, I am deeply committed to upholding ethical standards that prioritise the protection and well-being of all individuals, and I believe that legalising euthanasia may compromise these principles.

Additionally, my stance against legalising euthanasia is informed by a holistic understanding of mental health. Mental illness, depression, and existential distress can significantly impact an individual's decision-making capacity and perception of their own suffering. By offering euthanasia as an option, we risk overlooking the underlying psychological factors contributing to an individual's desire to end their life prematurely. Instead, I advocate for increased access to comprehensive mental health care, psychosocial support services, and interventions aimed at addressing the root causes of suffering and promoting resilience.

Furthermore, as a psychiatrist, I am acutely aware of the potential societal implications of legalising euthanasia. Permitting euthanasia could contribute to a culture where death is seen as a solution to suffering, potentially leading to the devaluation of life and exacerbating the stigma surrounding mental illness and disability. Rather than legalising euthanasia, I believe that society should focus on enhancing end-of-life care, promoting advance care planning, and improving access to palliative care services that prioritise comfort, dignity, and holistic support for individuals nearing the end of their lives.

Before making any decision regarding euthanasia, it is essential to consider two crucial questions: Is the legalisation of euthanasia consistent with our core values of autonomy, dignity, and the meaning of life? Or does it potentially undermine the fundamental essence of humanity? By analysing this issue through the framework of Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning, we can obtain more profound insights into the complex ethical challenges surrounding end-of-life care and the imperative to preserve the dignity of each individual, especially if they are suffering. In exploring the ethical dimensions of end-of-life decisions, Man's Search for Meaning offers a profound perspective that sheds light on the complexities of legalising euthanasia. Frankl's philosophy, shaped by his experiences in the Nazi concentration camps, underscores the human capacity to find meaning even amidst overwhelming suffering. Imagine a scenario where an individual facing a terminal illness or debilitating pain contemplates the option of euthanasia. Frankl's emphasis on the importance of confronting suffering with courage and resilience challenges us to reconsider the implications of such a decision.

In conclusion, as a psychiatrist, I urge policymakers, health care professionals, and society, as a whole, to approach this issue with empathy, compassion, and a commitment to preserving the dignity and worth of every individual. Let us strive to create a world where no one feels compelled to choose death over the possibility of finding hope, healing, and meaning amidst the depths of their suffering.

Dr Rajesh Sagar is professor of psychiatry, AIIMS, New Delhi. The views expressed are personal