NEVER one to be coy about pushing the bounds of convention, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan has raised the subject of euthanasia, to test the water. He has also on his probables list, issues as challenging as devising acceptable compensation in kidney donations, birth surrogacy and state funding for humane palliative care in end-of-life situations. What kind of receptivity the idea of euthanasia might draw should be considered as part of a coherent public-policy package for a nation coping with rapid ageing. These questions need to be ventilated intelligently to guide policymakers and legislators. On euthanasia and its close variant, doctor-assisted suicide, are Singaporeans more likely or less likely to have an open mind?

A look at the countries which have decriminalised euthanasia could give a clue. Although the issue has been debated for decades by theologians, medical ethicists and politicians, only a handful of jurisdictions (Holland, Belgium, Switzerland and Luxembourg) permit mercy killing under strict conditions. It is noted that these European nations are of a liberal temperament (Holland exceedingly so), tend to be at the leading edge of societal latitude, and are a mix of Protestant and Catholic. One American state, Oregon, permits it. In Australia the federal parliament overturned a law passed by the Northern Territory. Singapore with its diverse religions and a conservative core does not answer to the description of these societies. The poor response in the making of living wills after two decades of public education speaks of an aversion to dealing with the ethics and morality of death. It does not seem like Singapore will be at the head of the queue among second-wave nations making a stab at preparing their citizens to think about prescribing a humane death with a clear conscience.

Do Singaporeans need to think and form opinions about it, on the understanding that euthanasia might be considered in an indeterminate future? Most certainly, yes, and may they be free of cant discussing it. The living-will law could, if one chose to, be seen as a precursor to the possible adoption of active euthanasia when social progress is ripe, as the conditions under which the living will is activated are quite similar to those that trigger passive euthanasia. That is, no extraordinary attempts be made to prolong the life of a suffering terminal patient, based on prior written consent given voluntarily. For all the assumed conservatism of many Singaporeans, the Government has never fought shy of surfacing progressive policy choices ahead of their time, if they are thought inevitable and of benefit. Euthanasia is looking like a candidate whose time is nearer than most people would imagine.

For more The Straits Times stories, click here.