Insurers weigh in on euthanasia debate

As Malta continues its national consultation on the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia, the Malta Insurance Association (MIA) has weighed in, stressing the need for legal clarity and alignment with international standards to ensure consistent handling of life insurance claims.

The two-month consultation, announced by the Government on 7th May 2025, has already seen over 500 public submissions. Parliamentary Secretary for Reforms and Equality Rebecca Buttigieg recently noted that these contributions, gathered through public meetings and written feedback, reflect a wide spectrum of perspectives on the sensitive issue.

From the perspective of the insurance industry, euthanasia – if legalised – would likely be treated in a manner similar to natural death in most life insurance policies, particularly when it involves terminal illness. The MIA tells BusinessNow.mt that while some insurers may initially apply provisions similar to suicide exclusions within the first one to two years of a policy, there is general consensus that claims arising from medically assisted deaths would be covered, provided the legal framework is clearly defined.

“Reinsurers are broadly expected to support such an approach, but formal alignment and legal precision are essential,” the Association says. It also notes that insurers may review policy wording to explicitly include or define euthanasia, though existing policies cannot be changed retroactively.

Ethical considerations were also flagged, with the Association highlighting the importance of ensuring that patients are not coerced into euthanasia decisions. “The potential for abuse must be acknowledged,” it says, adding that medical oversight and a robust legal process could mitigate these risks.

Despite the sensitivity of the topic, the MIA does not foresee major operational or financial disruptions to the insurance industry if voluntary euthanasia is legalised. However, it emphasises the importance of coordinating with reinsurers and possibly reviewing international mortality data to refine actuarial assumptions.

On a business level, the Association acknowledged concerns about potential ‘timing’ of euthanasia by policyholders seeking to optimise benefits. “This is not expected to be a significant issue, given the medical safeguards expected to be in place,” the Association says, but stressed that the impact will need ongoing monitoring.

International precedents remain limited, as most jurisdictions that permit assisted dying do not differentiate between natural and assisted deaths in insurance contexts. Nonetheless, the MIA expects guidance to emerge from reinsurers and regulatory bodies in countries where euthanasia is already legal.

The industry’s pragmatic response therefore hinges on a clear legislative distinction between suicide and euthanasia and the implementation of robust ethical and medical safeguards. If these conditions are fulfilled, Insurers are confident that they can adapt with minimal disruption.