Independent parties in flight and the government never measured with less support

The topic of euthanasia has sparked significant public interest in Iceland, as revealed by a recent survey conducted by Maskína on behalf of Lifsvirðing in March 2026. The findings indicate strong public support for euthanasia, with 73.3% of respondents expressing approval for individuals receiving euthanasia under specific conditions. This level of support highlights a growing societal acceptance of the practice, particularly among those who believe it should be available for those facing terminal illnesses or severe suffering. However, the survey also reveals deep concerns about how such legislation would be implemented, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of ethical, legal, and practical implications.

Public concern centers around ensuring that euthanasia is only offered based on well-founded, independent, and informed decisions made by the individual seeking it. There is a clear emphasis on safeguarding vulnerable individuals, especially those who might be in precarious situations due to age, illness, or social isolation. Many respondents expressed fears regarding potential misuse, including direct pressure from others, such as family members, or indirect pressures stemming from personal circumstances like loneliness, lack of support, fear of being a burden, or feeling that life has lost its meaning in the eyes of others. These anxieties underscore the importance of establishing robust safeguards to prevent coercion and ensure that decisions are truly voluntary and informed.

A significant portion of those opposed to euthanasia—approximately 50.6%—expressed worries about the criteria for eligibility potentially changing over time. While euthanasia was initially proposed to be limited to individuals with terminal illnesses and no curable treatment options, some fear that the scope could expand to include those with long-term but non-life-threatening conditions or even individuals with serious mental health issues. This concern underscores the necessity of clearly defined boundaries and transparent legislative frameworks from the outset. It is crucial that the law explicitly outlines who qualifies for euthanasia, under what conditions, the evaluation process required, and the necessary prerequisites that must be fulfilled before the procedure can proceed.

Moreover, the experience of other countries where euthanasia is legally permitted suggests that changes in legislation do not occur automatically. In many cases, such reforms have been preceded by extensive public debate, political decision-making, and formal legal processes. Boundaries are not self-adjusting; they require deliberate and conscious choices by society and lawmakers. Therefore, Iceland must approach this issue thoughtfully, ensuring that any legislative changes reflect a consensus built upon thorough discussion and reflection.

To address these concerns, transparency and accountability mechanisms are essential. Approximately 23.1% of those opposed to euthanasia worry about the risk of undermining trust between patients and healthcare professionals. To counteract this, the implementation of clear procedures, effective oversight, and open communication channels is vital. In countries where euthanasia is permitted, it is common practice to document each case and report them to independent monitoring bodies. These entities review whether the legal requirements were met and whether proper procedures were followed. If violations are identified, appropriate corrective actions are taken, which may involve further investigations or legal consequences in more serious cases.

Public reporting and annual reviews of the implementation process are also critical components of ensuring accountability. These reports provide detailed information on the number of applications received, the number of approved cases, the reasons behind requests, and how oversight has been carried out. Such transparency allows the general public to monitor the progress of the system and assess whether it functions as intended.

Iceland does not need to start from scratch when considering the introduction of euthanasia. Experience from other countries shows that it is possible to establish a clear and responsible legal framework for euthanasia. Moreover, the concerns raised here are not unique to Iceland. The most important lesson learned is the necessity of clear criteria, professional assessment, and active monitoring. By learning from international experiences, Iceland can craft a policy that balances compassion with caution, ensuring that the rights and dignity of all individuals are protected.