The Urgency of Regulatory Formulation

Euthanasia lies at the intersection of criminal law, health law, and the right to life, yet Indonesia lacks a unified legal framework integrating these three areas. Doctors, patients, and families face uncertainty when making end-of-life decisions. This study examines the regulation of euthanasia within Indonesian positive law across four legal branches: criminal law, health law, civil law, and medical administrative law. The article aims to analyze existing regulations and the resulting uncertainties, as well as to explain the urgent need for a comprehensive regulatory framework. This normative legal research employs statutory, analytical, and conceptual approaches, utilizing the Stufenbau theory, Radbruch’s three fundamental legal values, and the right to self-determination as analytical lenses. Primary legal materials consist of six instruments: the 1945 Constitution, the National Criminal Code, the Health Law, Government Regulation Number 28 of 2024, Minister of Health Regulation Number 37 of 2014, and the Civil Code. Scholarly literature serves as secondary material. The findings indicate that these four legal branches operate without a connecting norm. Article 461 of the National Criminal Code fails to distinguish between active and passive euthanasia; authority regarding the cessation of treatment rests with the family; and informed consent is not recognized as a justification. Formulating a regulation is urgent to ensure legal certainty, justice, and utility, without implying the legalization of euthanasia in Indonesia.