The right to die: A comparative analysis of end-of-life issues in Scandinavian legal systems

Main traits of Scandinavian legal systems

Before delving into end-of-life issues in the Scandinavian legal systems, it is appropriate to highlight some methodological and socio-geographical questions regarding these systems. By “Scandinavian legal systems” (and Scandinavian countries, in general), we mean the systems of Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden.^1,2 When additional countries are included (such as Finland), one generally refers to Nordic legal systems. Nordic legal systems (and the Scandinavian countries, thus included in this group) are classified by many scholars,^3,4 as a distinct family of legal systems (as opposed to civil law and common law systems). The elements that characterize Scandinavian legal systems can be identified by the following features:

“The absence of extensive codification of law, the concrete nature of legal argumentation and style (a direct consequence of Scandinavian legal realism), the separation between public law and private law, the clear affirmation of a very marked legislative positivism, the absolutely significant and often decisive influence of preparatory works in legal interpretation, the role of legal dogmatics, the absence of binding precedent of higher courts (i.e., the principle of stare decisis), and the strong and institutionalized legislative cooperation among [Scandinavian] countries” (5, p. 5).

All four Scandinavian countries considered here thus have fairly homogeneous forms of state and government. The history of the four countries is characterized by a close interweaving of events and relationships. For a comprehensive analysis of the history of Scandinavia, see. ²

As several authors note, including,^5–8 it will be precisely the relationship with the ECHR that highlights the original lack of porosity of the Scandinavian systems to the reception of “Continental European” models and values, even on shared issues in Western Europe (such as fundamental human rights), further marking a certain peculiarity of the Scandinavian world. For example, the delayed acceptance of the ECHR and its lack of prominence (i.e., not being constitutionally ranked) indicate a reluctance of these legal systems to alter the established constitutional framework. This rigidity of the Scandinavian systems has been chipped away over the years by various judgments of the ECHR (particularly against Denmark and Sweden) and by the activities of national supreme courts, which have recognized an important (and almost primary) role for the dictates of the ECHR concerning fundamental rights.

Despite the fact that Scandinavian countries are characterized by having particularly progressive societies attentive to the protection of human rights,^9–11 it should be noted that there is a noticeable absence both of public debate and of legislation on end-of-life issues.

End-of-life in Iceland

Iceland is the country that has addressed the issue of end-of-life the least. The Icelandic Penal Code ¹² is divided into 29 chapters with a total of 269 articles. Chapter XXIII (arts. 211–224) titled “Murder and Bodily Harm” serves as the starting point for understanding the situation in Iceland regarding end-of-life matters.

Article 211 punishes murder with a minimum sentence of 5 years. However, Articles 213, 214, and 221 are particularly relevant to the topic at hand: the first addresses the case that in Italy has been revised as “murder of the consenting,” the second article pertains to the so-called case of incitement to suicide, while the last one deals with the specific case of end-of-life. Icelandic law, through Article 213 of the Penal Code, prohibits the murder of another person even if that person makes an urgent request, prescribing a penalty of up to 3 years, as stated in the article:

“Anyone who takes another person's life at his or her urgent request shall be imprisoned for up to 3 years.” (12, art. 213)

Additionally, Article 214 prohibits and punishes assistance to a person intending to commit suicide:

“A person who contributes towards another person's taking his or her own life shall be imprisoned for up to 1 year or fined.” (12, art. 214)

These two articles thus immediately close the debate on the legality of euthanasia techniques in Iceland: indeed, the first article prohibits euthanasia, and the second prohibits and penalizes (medically assisted) suicide. The Icelandic Penal Code appears to be inspired by that continental and international tradition that seeks to posit the right to life and, consequently, prescribes penalties for those who act against life (themselves or others). However, it should also be noted that in Iceland—just as in many other countries —there is the Patient Rights Act, ¹³ which introduced the institution of informed consent (Art. 7): ¹³

“The right of the patient to decide whether he/she will accept treatment shall be respected. […] No treatment may be given without the consent of the patient, cf. paragraph 1 and 2, but cp. Art. 9. Consent shall be in writing whenever possible and indicate the information provided to the patient, and that he/she has understood the information.”

In addition, Article 8 establishes the patient's right to refuse treatment:

“If the patient refuses to accept treatment, a doctor shall inform him/her about the possible consequences of his/her decision. The patient may discontinue treatment at any time, unless otherwise provided by other legislation. If a patient refuses to accept treatment, his/her physician or the healthcare practitioner supervising the treatment shall inform him/her of the possible consequences of the decision.” (13, Art.8)

Article 9, on the other hand, deals with the rights of individuals who are unable to express their will:

“If a patient is unconscious or his/her condition is such that he/she is unable to express his/her will regarding urgent treatment, consent shall be assumed, unless it is known with certainty that he/she would have refused treatment.” (13, Art. 9)

Central to this discussion is Article 24, which addresses the theme of a dignified death for terminal patients:

“A terminal patient has the right to die with dignity. If a terminal patient unambiguously indicates that he/she declines further life-prolonging treatment, or resuscitation efforts, his/her physician shall respect his/her decision. If a terminal patient is mentally or physically too ill to take part in a decision on treatment, the physician shall endeavor to consult the patient's relatives and his/her colleagues before he/she decides on the continuation or cessation of treatment.” (13, Art.24)

This article does not open the door to (active) euthanasia but rather to the possibility/right of patients to refuse and/or discontinue life-sustaining medical treatments. It is also interesting to note that the Icelandic association for the right to die—along with the respective associations from other Nordic countries—signed the Helsinki Declaration (Nordic Declaration of Medically Assisted Dying 2021) on January 27, 2021, aimed at intensifying dialogue with their respective national governments to promote public discussion on euthanasia, and, above all, to foster new and more careful legislation on the topic.

According to reports from Icelandic national newspapers and surveys conducted in 2019 by Lífsvirðingar ¹⁴ —a group advocating for the spread of knowledge about euthanasia and its legalization—77% of the Icelandic population would support the legalization of assisted suicide for individuals suffering from incurable diseases and enduring psycho-physical suffering.

End-of-life in Sweden

The Swedish Penal Code underwent numerous and substantial amendments in 2020. It is divided into three sections with a total of 38 chapters. The most relevant section here is the second, titled Om brott mot liv och hälsa (On Offenses Against Life and Health). Indeed, Article 1 and Article 2 address mord and dråp, referring to voluntary (and premeditated) murder and non-premeditated and/or negligent voluntary murder, respectively:

“Anyone who takes another person's life shall be sentenced for murder to a fixed term of imprisonment, not less than ten and not more than eighteen years, or to life imprisonment. As grounds for life imprisonment, special consideration shall be given if the act was preceded by careful planning, marked by special cunning, intended to promote or conceal another crime, caused severe suffering to the victim, or otherwise was particularly ruthless.” (, ¹⁵ Art. 1)

In light of the provisions of the Penal Code, euthanasia or assistance with suicide would be fully classified as murder. It should also be noted that medically assisted suicide is expressly prohibited in the Patient Safety Act (2010:659), which mandates the loss of medical license for healthcare personnel who actively and knowingly assist in the patient's death. The Svenska Läkaresällskapets (SLS, the Swedish Medical Association) has an ethics section that has developed various ethical guidelines over the years to address particularly sensitive bioethical issues. In 2010, the Ethical Guidelines for Palliative Sedation at the end-of-life were published. ¹⁶ These guidelines specify that the purpose of palliative sedation is to alleviate patient suffering, following the fundamental principle of medical ethics, which is to do good. It is also specified that palliative treatments must not harm the patient, resulting in unacceptable collateral situations. Therefore, procuring the death of the patient is prohibited, opting instead for sedation that maintains the patient's consciousness at a level that does not cause suffering. Six articles follow that can guide the physician in making ethical and legal decisions in these cases.

In 2006, the Swedish public debate focused on the case of Joakim Alpgård, a 35-year-old who was completely paralyzed as a result of a car accident. Alpgård—after nearly 10 years bedridden and reliant on a ventilator for breathing—had asked the medical staff to discontinue life-sustaining treatment, specifically the cessation of mechanical ventilation. The medical authorities opposed this request, as it would constitute active euthanasia. Tired of the hesitation from Swedish authorities, Alpgård decided to turn to the Swiss organization Dignitas, which assisted him in traveling to Switzerland to die, thus becoming the first Swedish patient to undergo (abroad) active euthanasia. The bioethical issue raised by Alpgård shook public opinion and compelled the Swedish Medical Board to consider the case of competent patients who decide they wish to die.^17,18

From this case, work began on producing the Ethical Guidelines for the Maintenance or Discontinuation of Life-Sustaining Treatments. ¹⁹ The guidelines prescribe to Swedish physicians that in the event of doubt, it is always more (ethically and medically) appropriate to initiate or continue life-sustaining treatments. Only when life-sustaining treatments are clearly identifiable as unnecessary can they be discontinued. Article 4 of the guidelines (, ¹⁹ Art. 4) specifies that a patient capable of understanding and willing can, after receiving information from medical staff, freely decide not to undergo or to discontinue life-sustaining treatment. Article 5 prescribes that in the case of patients unable to make autonomous decisions, the attending physician must respect any oral or written directives in which the patient has expressed a wish to refuse or discontinue life-sustaining treatments. In the absence of such directives, physicians may seek the opinion of those who know the patient and of a medical team to better activate or discontinue care. Therefore, while space and importance are given to the final wishes of the patient, it remains that the physician has the ultimate responsibility in the decision to discontinue life-sustaining treatment.

The issues of end-of-life in Sweden have received renewed media and legislative attention in recent years due to the Bergström case. In 2020—amidst the COVID-19 pandemic—Steffen Bergström, a doctor and professor at the Karolinska Institutet, reported himself to the authorities for having assisted a man with ALS to die. The patient had already been in contact with a Swiss clinic where he was to receive euthanasia, but the trip was canceled due to the COVID pandemic. Given the unsustainable nature of his condition, the patient turned to Bergström, who prescribed him a lethal dose of sleeping pills. The doctor turned himself in to the authorities, who charged him with medhjälp till dråp (aiding in murder). The case was reviewed by the Health Inspectorate within the Ministry of Health, which requested the revocation of Bergström's medical license. Bergström's defense has often centered on the fact that—according to the accused's lawyers—the doctor did not actively cause the patient's death, but merely enacted terminal palliative sedation (and thus a legitimate medical act) that led to the patient's death. In February 2021, the court ruling in Bergström's case determined that the doctor could not be held responsible for murder. The court highlighted the case of aiding/suicide assistance, which is not punishable under Swedish law. In 2022, various appeals led to the revocation of Bergström's medical practice license, although he declared on October 3, 2022, that—despite being 78 and retired—he would appeal the decision. The issue did reach Parliament in May 2021, thanks to the parliamentary activity of Louise Meijer, who was the sponsor of petition 2021/22:3826. ²⁰ This petition requested that the Riksdag consider the possibility of a parliamentary debate on euthanasia in Sweden, starting from the current case of Bergström. The petition sought to eliminate once and for all the ambiguities and/or gray areas of the Swedish Penal Code, leading to the full legitimacy of euthanasia for terminal patients who are competent to make their own decisions. It also called for the possibility of allowing euthanasia for those patients who, despite wishing it, were unable to carry out the euthanasia procedure independently. The petition was examined by the health committee, which rejected it. A new motion was resubmitted to the Riksdag, also by Louise Meijer, on November 18, 2022. ²¹

End-of-life in Denmark

The Danish Penal Code does not significantly differ from other Scandinavian penal codes. The code is divided into 29 chapters, with Chapter 25, titled Crimes Against Life and Bodily Integrity, being particularly relevant here, specifically paragraphs 237, 239, and 240. As is the case with other Scandinavian codes, (§237) ²² states:

“Anyone who kills another person is punished for murder with imprisonment from 5 years up to life imprisonment.”

One immediately notices the possibility of imposing a life sentence in the Danish Penal Code (a sentence absent, as we will see, in Norway). (§239) ²² addresses the specific case of murder by request (bestemte begæring), which carries a maximum penalty of 3 years in prison:

“Anyone who kills another after that person's definite request is punished with imprisonment of up to 3 years.”

The last relevant paragraph is (§240) ²² regarding incitement to suicide:

“Anyone who assists another person in committing suicide is punishable with imprisonment of up to 3 years.”

From the reading of the Danish Penal Code, a fairly conservative situation emerges, which is quite uniform with the other Scandinavian penal codes. This results in a total illegality of euthanasia and/or medically assisted suicide. The Patient Rights Act ²³ introduced substantial expansions to the rights of Danish patients regarding informed consent, refusal of medical treatments, and living wills. Specifically, the law states that patients (over 15 years old and capable of understanding and willing) have the right to self-determination and that informed consent is required for any type of medical treatment, as seen in (§6). ²³ The patient's right to self-determination is curtailed in (§10) ²³ in cases where the patient is unable to express their will (temporarily or permanently) or in situations of extreme emergency: in this case, the physician is obligated to make medical choices deemed most appropriate for the patient's health, even without the informed consent of a close relative. The law also specifies that patients have the right to request the discontinuation of medical treatments only when death is imminent (§16), ²³ introducing living wills in §17, which become legally binding for the physician in the case of terminally ill patients. Furthermore, it specifies that for incurably terminal patients who are unable to express their will, healthcare providers may refuse to initiate or continue medical treatment that would prolong the patient's life. The last part of paragraph 16 deals with regulating palliative care. It provides that a terminal patient may receive the necessary pain relief and/or sedatives to reduce their suffering, even if this implies a hastened approach to the patient's death (§16). ²³ This last point is of fundamental importance because it opens the possibility for irreversibly terminal and dying patients to receive particularly strong palliative care that could almost be considered a case of passive aid in dying. ²⁴

A significant case that has been subject to national debate—and even reached the Supreme Court—involved Dr Svend Lings. In 2019, the Danish Supreme Court found Dr Svend Lings guilty—under Article 240 of the Penal Code—of assisting numerous patients in committing suicide. Lings was a doctor (and even head physician) at Odense University Hospital. In 2017, now retired, he announced to Radio24Syv that he had helped at least ten people with the practice of medically assisted suicide. Following these statements, health authorities revoked Lings’ medical license and reported him to national authorities. The case reached the District Court in 2018, where the doctor was convicted of only two cases. Following Article 240 of the Penal Code and applying mitigating circumstances (age and personal health), the doctor was sentenced to 40 days in prison. The doctor appealed all the way to Højesterett (the Supreme Court). Højesterett confirmed Lings’ guilt through judgment 42/2019 ²⁵ on September 23, 2019, and increased the sentence from 40 to 60 days because the number of cases for which Lings was specifically responsible was raised to 3.

The defense had based its case on the fact that the patient (an 85-year-old terminally ill woman, suffering from numerous physical sores that prevented her from living a dignified life but still fully capable of understanding and willing) had clearly stated her intention and voluntarily decided to perform the act for which she sought—via email—chemical and practical advice from the accused doctor. The Court recognized, on one hand, the non-egoistic intention of Lings’ actions, ²⁵ but on the other hand, it also highlighted the systematic nature of the criminal actions carried out by the doctor. For these reasons, Lings (nearly 78 years old) was sentenced to only 60 days of probation. To this day, Lings remains a strong advocate for euthanasia as an expression of individual self-determination and as a human right. On his personal website, he has even created a guide for suicide assistance: a list of suggestions regarding which medications and support techniques can be employed to carry out euthanasia. This advocacy activity for euthanasia has led the now very elderly Lings to face a series of further accusations and attention from both health authorities and national bodies. In 2023, Danish Prime Minister Mette Fredriksen expressed support for a parliamentary and national debate on euthanasia, stating her personal support for euthanasic practices.^26,27 The Danish Council of Ethics developed a report in the same year opposing the Danish Parliament regarding the legalization of euthanasia practices. ²⁸

End-of-life in Norway

Norway is also characterized as a relatively conservative country regarding end-of-life issues, although it presents a more dynamic situation compared to the other Scandinavian states. The Norwegian Penal Code is divided into three parts and 412 sections. The section of interest here is the twenty-fifth, titled Voldslovbrudd mv. (Violent Crimes, etc.), but especially the articles: 275 (murder), 277 (incitement to suicide), and 278 (murder of the consenting).

Article 275 penalizes the crime of murder:

“Anyone who kills another person is punished with imprisonment from 8 up to 21 years.” ²⁹

Article 277 punishes incitement (aiding) to suicide:

“Anyone who contributes to someone inflicting significant harm on their own body or health is punishable by imprisonment of up to 15 years. Anyone who assists someone in taking their own life is punishable with imprisonment from 8 to 21 years.”

The last relevant article is 278 on murder by consent. Norwegian legislation penalizes murder by consent but distinguishes this case from other types of murder by assigning a less severe penalty:

278. Medlidenhetsdrap. ²⁹

“If someone, out of compassion, kills a person who is terminally ill or who, for other reasons, is close to dying, the penalty may be set below the minimum sentence or to a milder penalty than what follows from §275.”

If a person kills another for compassionate reasons, specifically targeting someone who is terminally ill or nearing death, a lesser penalty or minimum sentence according to §275 applies. This last article is very important because it significantly differs from the laws in force in other Scandinavian countries. However, it should be specified that this article does not legalize any practices of euthanasia or assisted suicide. A brief analysis of the Norwegian Penal Code reveals that Norwegian law prohibits both active euthanasia and (medically) assisted suicide. Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, remains conceptually a gray area but is still punishable. The notable Straffelovkommisjon (Commission for the Amendment of the Penal Code, established at the Government's initiative) ³⁰ had analyzed numerous proposals in 2002 to amend the above articles to allow for certain euthanasia practices. However, the Penal Code was left unchanged.

Up to now, the Norwegian State has not re-discussed the issue of euthanasia. ³¹ Part of this is also because many Norwegian doctors do not consider euthanasia and/or assisted suicide practicable. Various sociological studies conducted in 1997 and subsequent years, whose results are reported and analyzed in,^24,32,33 show that only 17% of Norwegian doctors (in 1997) deemed these practices acceptable.

Even today, the ethical code of the Norwegian Medical Association explicitly condemns both euthanasia and medically assisted suicide. ³⁴ Paragraph 5 specifies that “doctors must not perform euthanasia, which means euthanasia or assisted suicide, both of which are actions where the physician intentionally contributes to hastening the time of death,” but it is also essential to note the second part of paragraph 5, which specifies certain points regarding the discontinuation of medical treatments and/or palliative care:

“Limiting futile life-prolonging treatment is not considered euthanasia because the patient then dies from their underlying illness. The same applies to palliative sedation in the end stage of life, where the aim is to control symptoms that cannot be alleviated in any other way.” (35, §5)

The rigid opposition of the state and the Norwegian medical community to euthanasia practices is clear, but it remains striking when compared to what Norwegian citizens believe is best for their lives. In fact, in 2015, the University of Oslo and Norges Handelshøyskole conducted a sociological study on Norwegians’ attitudes towards euthanasia. The resulting report, the NOBAS: Norwegian Bioethics Attitude Survey,^35,36 has shown that the majority of the Norwegian population would support regulated forms of euthanasia practices. The questionnaire included numerous statements on various social issues, including euthanasia (in its various facets), to which respondents had to indicate their agreement or disagreement. To the situation “Medically assisted suicide should be legal for terminally ill patients,” 37.5% of Norwegians responded that they absolutely agreed, 35% said they somewhat agreed, and only 12.9% expressed total disagreement, while the remainder were uncertain. Another question posed a very detailed scenario, asking respondents whether “the doctor should be allowed to administer a lethal dose of medication at the request of a terminally ill, incurable, and suffering patient.” In this case, 53% of Norwegians stated that they absolutely agreed. The most uncertain responses were recorded regarding the question of whether euthanasia should be legalized for people with an incurable terminal illness who have been presented with a very short life expectancy. In this case, only 34% of Norwegians strongly agreed. It appears that the generality of the described situation did not allow respondents to express their views holistically and completely on euthanasia; presented with a specific and detailed case (a suffering terminal patient), however, the population clearly took a position in favor of euthanasia. Similar results have been reported over the years by scientific inquiries among medical students,^37,38 as well as non-scientific (and thus simply journalistic) evidence, such as the Medieundersøkelse of 2015. ³⁹

There is a strong dissociation between what the population desires and what is prescribed in the ethical and deontological rules of the Medical Association. This gap between societal positions and the official stance of the state and legislature is further evidenced in two notable cases (from 1993 and 1996) that received extensive media coverage, specifically the Husebø Case and the Sandsdalen Case. The latter is particularly significant since it reached the Norwegian Supreme Court.

Stein Husebø remains a popular and controversial figure. In 1992, he was working as an anaesthetist in a public hospital and publicly admitted during a television interview that he had helped a patient suffering from terminal, incurable cancer to obtain a lethal drug to end the unbearable suffering. This case could be classified as medically assisted suicide because it involved a terminally ill and incurable (as well as suffering) patient who freely, knowingly, and autonomously requested to end their life with the help of a physician. The Husebø case was taken up by Helsetilsynet (Public Health Board), which deemed it appropriate to report Husebø to the authorities. Surprisingly, at the time, the national authorities decided only to temporarily suspend the doctor and subsequently found him not prosecutable for murder (or incitement to suicide). Husebø received only a formal reprimand from the Medical Association and a “warning” from Helsetilsynet. Interestingly, Husebø is now a staunch opponent of euthanasia. He maintains that what he did in 1992 was wrong, asserting that the national health service's purpose is to protect the most vulnerable patients, not to offer them death.

Over the years, there have been other similar events to the Husebø case, but on a smaller scale. The so-called Bærum Case is noted here. A doctor at Bærum Hospital (Oslo) realized that, from 1999 to 2000, a colleague had performed a form of terminal sedation on a patient suffering from incurable cancer and unbearable pain. Specifically, the accused doctor (Stig Ottesen) allegedly instructed on-duty nurses treating the terminally ill patient to significantly increase the doses of certain medications already being used for the patient's pain. Again, this issue was brought to the attention of Helsetilsynet and the national authorities, who decided not to proceed against Ottesen—lacking a direct link between the patient's death, the patient's suicidal intent, and the dosage of medication injected (information that was absent from the deceased patient's medical record). The doctor was therefore reprimanded for medical incompetence (since various treatments given to the deceased patient had not been properly documented and recorded in the medical records) by Helsetilsynet. ⁴⁰

However, the case that most significantly impacted Norwegian jurisprudence is undoubtedly the Sandsdalen case. Christian Sandsdalen was accused in 1996 of murder for prescribing a lethal dose of morphine to a terminally ill patient with multiple sclerosis. Sandsdalen made this medical choice upon the explicit and informed request of the patient, thus constituting the first explicit case of aktiv dødshjelp (active aid in dying) in Norwegian history. Subsequently, Sandsdalen voluntarily reported himself to the health and national authorities with the clear intention of prompting the legislature to modify the euthanasia legislation. In December 1997, the doctor was convicted by the Oslo District Court for premeditated murder; however, at the same time, the court suspended the sentence. Both Sandsdalen and the prosecution appealed to the Court of Appeal. After various legal proceedings, in April 1999, the Court of Appeal again convicted the doctor for premeditated murder but simultaneously suspended the sentence. Sandsdalen and the prosecution subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court. On April 14, 2000, via judgment 47/1999–25/2000, the Norwegian Supreme Court again convicted Sandsdalen but added important specifications. The Court first acknowledged that:

“The injections [of lethal drugs administered by Sandsdalen] were performed after careful consideration and after various conversations with Bjerkmann [the deceased patient]. The Court of Appeal had already rightly acknowledged that the act in question was performed following numerous and persistent requests from Bjerkmann herself, who was irredeemably ill; therefore, compassion and mercy were the primary motives driving Sandsdalen's decision.” ⁴¹

Based on these premises, the Court confirmed the illegality of Sandsdalen's actions but also granted him mitigating circumstances based on Article 278 of the Penal Code (regarding compassionate motives in the murder of the consenting). ⁴² In October 2002, Sandsdalen passed away. His human legacy and social fight for euthanasia have been carried on by the Association for the Right to a Dignified Death.

Conclusions

This work has analyzed the topic of end-of-life issues in a comparative manner across the legal systems of Scandinavian countries. These countries were selected for examination due to their shared legal tradition, which renders them a distinct and autonomous legal family compared to other European continental systems. The analysis aimed to highlight the rules, limitations, and developments regarding end-of-life issues in these various states.

It has been observed that all the countries are decidedly restrictive concerning end-of-life issues, particularly when compared to other continental European countries with notably more precise and liberal legislation. In the Nordic legal systems—perhaps with the exception of Sweden—there is a significant lack of evolving trends and strong public opinion movements advocating for euthanasia that are evident in other continental European countries.

The findings underscore a complex interplay between historical legal frameworks, cultural attitudes, and ethical considerations that continue to shape end-of-life practices in Scandinavia. While there is a shared legal heritage, the divergence in legislative responses suggests a conservative approach to euthanasia that reflects societal preferences for traditional views on life and death.

In conclusion, while there is a recognized need for a deeper exploration of the ethical implications surrounding euthanasia and medically assisted suicide, the current legal structures in Scandinavian countries remain firmly anchored in a conservative paradigm. Given the shifting attitudes toward autonomy and dignity in end-of-life decisions, there is a compelling argument for future legislative discussions that align legal practices with the public's growing interest in the right to die. Addressing these issues may not only enhance legislative responsiveness but also promote a more compassionate approach to end-of-life care in the region.