Asking for your thoughts on euthanasia is one of the most common ethics questions at medical school interviews, sometimes asked directly and sometimes as a discussion of the arguments for and against legalising it. Many applicants come in with a strong view, which is fine, but the marks come from showing you understand the other side, knowing what the law currently is, and being able to separate euthanasia from assisted dying and from withdrawing treatment. This article goes through why schools ask it, how to structure a balanced answer, and an example of a strong one.
Why medical schools ask it
Ethical questions present a dilemma and test your ability to reason through it in a balanced, structured way. There is no single right answer, as long as your reasoning is lawful, balanced and specific to the situation. Euthanasia is the classic example because the arguments on each side are strong, well known and genuinely held, so the interviewer can tell within a minute whether a candidate is reasoning or reciting.
It is also a test of professional boundaries. Assisted dying and euthanasia are illegal in the UK, and encouraging or assisting suicide is a criminal offence under the Suicide Act 1961. Whatever you think the law should be, a doctor has to work within what it is, and interviewers want to hear that distinction made clearly.
What interviewers are looking for
There is no fixed list of content points for this question, but across ethics stations interviewers mark for:
- Clear definitions. Euthanasia is a deliberate act by someone else to end a life to relieve suffering. Assisted dying is a person ending their own life with help, usually prescribed medication. Withdrawing or withholding treatment that is not benefiting a patient is neither, and is lawful standard practice.
- Both sides weighed, two or three points each, before you reach a view.
- The four pillars applied, especially autonomy against non-maleficence, and justice in the form of protection for vulnerable groups.
- The law and GMC guidance stated accurately. Illegal in the UK; doctors must not participate; the duty is to provide good palliative care and honest communication.
- Your own conclusion, reached after giving the opposing case its due.
How to structure your answer
Use the standard ethics structure: identify the issue, acknowledge both sides, apply the four pillars, relate to GMC guidance, and give a balanced conclusion with reflection. The model answer below follows it:
1. Identify the issue
The ethical issue is whether euthanasia - the deliberate act of ending a patient’s life to relieve suffering - should be permitted, balancing autonomy and relief of suffering against legal, ethical, and professional concerns around preserving life.
2. Acknowledge both sides of the ethical debate
Arguments in favour of euthanasia:
Arguments against euthanasia:
3. Apply the four ethical pillars
4. Relate to GMC guidance
The GMC states doctors must respect autonomy, act in patients’ best interests, and protect life. However, euthanasia and assisted dying are illegal in the UK, so doctors must not participate. GMC guidance instead stresses the importance of providing high-quality palliative care, open communication, and compassionate support at the end of life.
5. Balanced conclusion with reflection
Euthanasia raises important arguments around autonomy and compassion, but in the UK it remains unlawful and goes against GMC guidance. The ethical focus should therefore be on ensuring excellent end-of-life and palliative care, supporting patients and families with dignity, and respecting patients’ wishes within the law. As a future doctor, it is important to balance empathy for suffering patients with the responsibility to uphold ethical and legal standards.
Check the law the week before your interview
The position described here, that euthanasia and assisted dying are illegal throughout the UK, is the one the model answer is written to. A bill to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults in England and Wales has been going through Parliament, and Scotland has considered its own. If either has passed by the time you interview, say so; knowing the current state of the law is exactly what this question rewards.
Example answer
A spoken answer of about ninety seconds:
- Define
- I'd start by being clear what we mean. Euthanasia is a doctor or someone else deliberately ending a patient's life to relieve suffering. Assisted dying is the patient ending their own life with help, usually a prescription. Both are different from withdrawing treatment that isn't helping, which is lawful and happens every day.
- For
- The case for allowing it rests on autonomy: if we let a competent adult refuse life-sustaining treatment, it seems inconsistent to refuse them help to die when they are suffering and dying anyway. There is a beneficence argument too, that some suffering cannot be relieved by palliative care, and a dignity argument about dying on your own terms.
- Against
- Against it, the strongest point is protection of the vulnerable: people who are old, disabled or feel a burden may come to see it as expected of them, and safeguards are hard to make watertight. There is a risk to trust in doctors if the profession that treats you can also end your life, and there is the slippery slope, where eligibility widens over time, as it has in some countries that legalised it.
- Law and GMC
- At the moment euthanasia and assisted dying are illegal in the UK, under the Suicide Act, and the GMC is clear that doctors must not participate. What doctors must do is respond to a request with compassion: find out why the patient is asking, treat the distress, make sure palliative care is as good as it can be, and be honest about prognosis and options.
- Conclusion
- My own view is that I can see why Parliament has been looking at a tightly limited form of assisted dying for the terminally ill, but I would want to see safeguards that genuinely protect people who are vulnerable before I was comfortable with it. Whatever the law ends up being, as a doctor I would follow it and focus on the care I can give.
Practise this question out loud
Try answering it with the AI interviewer: it asks the question, follows up on what you say, and marks you against the points above.
Common follow-up questions
The follow-up usually pushes on your conclusion, or turns the principle into a scenario where you are the doctor being asked to help.
Discuss the arguments in favour of and against legalising euthanasia.
Reported at Nottingham, Brighton and Sussex, Manchester, Sheffield and UCL. The same answer with the conclusion reframed as whether the law should change.
A patient's wife asks you to sign a certificate so her terminally ill husband can travel to Switzerland to die. What do you do?
Asked at Belfast. You would not sign it, because assisting would be unlawful; you would listen, acknowledge the situation, and talk about what palliative care can do.
Parents of a seriously ill child request euthanasia without attempting treatment. What are the issues?
Asked at Keele. Parental authority is not absolute; the child's best interests govern, euthanasia is unlawful, and the real discussion is about whether to attempt treatment.
Discuss the ethics around CPR and DNACPR decisions.
The question that tests whether you can separate not giving futile treatment from ending a life.
Should a doctor withhold a terminal diagnosis to keep a patient's spirits up?
Asked at Glasgow and UCL. Honesty is a GMC duty; the exception is a patient who has clearly said they do not want to know.
Common pitfalls
Things to avoid when answering the question:
- Giving a one-sided answer :
- Ethical questions usually have legitimate arguments on both sides. Failing to acknowledge complexity suggests shallow thinking.
- Muddling the terms :
- Euthanasia, assisted dying and withdrawing treatment are three different things. Interviewers notice when they are run together.
- Not knowing the law :
- It is illegal in the UK. Saying so, and naming the Suicide Act 1961, is expected.
- Being too rigid :
- Context matters in ethics. "It should never be allowed" or "autonomy always wins" both ignore the nuances that make the question interesting.
- Forgetting to conclude :
- After exploring both sides, state your view. Sitting on the fence without reaching a reasoned conclusion is unsatisfying.
- Not mentioning GMC guidance :
- Doctors must not participate in euthanasia, and must provide palliative care and honest communication instead. Saying this shows you know the framework doctors work within.
Which schools ask it
This wording is reported at the schools below, and the legalisation version at Nottingham, Brighton and Sussex, Sheffield and others. The scenario forms are reported at Belfast and Keele.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between euthanasia and assisted dying?
In euthanasia, someone else, usually a doctor, performs the act that ends the patient's life. In assisted dying, the patient performs it themselves with help, typically medication prescribed for the purpose. Both are currently illegal in the UK; proposals to change the law have concerned assisted dying for terminally ill adults, not euthanasia.
Is withdrawing life support euthanasia?
No. Withholding or withdrawing treatment that is not benefiting a patient, or that a competent patient has refused, is lawful and is standard practice. The patient dies of their underlying condition, not of an act intended to kill them. Interviewers often test this distinction.
Do I have to give my personal opinion?
Yes, in the conclusion, after you have given both sides fairly. Interviewers are not marking which side you take. They are marking whether you reached it by reasoning and whether you can hold it while acknowledging the strength of the opposing case.