Forum: As we debate euthanasia, ask what kind of ageing society we are building

In the space of four weeks, there have been a few letters on end-of-life issues following Ravi Velloor’s article which floated the idea of a “cut-off year” for state support as a deliberately sobering thought experiment (Preparing for a time when living to age 120 is commonplace, May 27).

One letter proposed folding voluntary euthanasia into our Advance Medical Directive framework. Another called for a national conversation on legalising it outright.

I do not doubt the sincerity or compassion behind any of these letters. But before we debate how to legalise dying, we owe ourselves a prior question: What kind of ageing society are we trying to become?

The case for euthanasia rests on a premise worth naming aloud – that a life can reach a point where it is no longer worth living, and that the person living is the one to certify this. The first half I would resist; the second mistakes meaning for worth.

What a person lives for is theirs to author. But worth is something we recognise in people, not something they generate – which is why, when someone in despair tells us their life no longer matters, we refuse to agree, and rightly. A worth the self confers, the self can withdraw, and it is then as fragile as a passing mood.

This matters for policy because a lawful, routine exit is never wholly private. Once it exists, it changes the meaning of staying – the dependants come under quiet pressure to justify the cost of remaining alive. That is not autonomy enlarged; it is the “hurry up and die” logic given a compassionate face.

By all means let us have a national conversation. But let it begin one step further back – not with how we might help our frailest members leave, but with how we might build a society in which they never doubt they are wanted.

Shiou Liang Wee