Photo: https://www.manlitphil.ac.uk/read-watch-listen/should-we-permit-voluntary-assisted-dying/

At the heart of medicine lies a promise: to heal and to do no harm. But what happens when healing is no longer possible, and continued life itself becomes suffering? This is the case for many patients with terminal cases, where they may just be waiting to die in a suffering state. A solution to this problem is physician assisted dying, also referred to as physician assisted suicide, is a process where a physician would provide a patient a prescription for a lethal dose of a medication, which a patient would self-administer to end their own life. The patient gets the choice of when they would get to die and perform the final act themselves. To be eligible for this in the United States, it is currently limited to only terminally ill adults who are mentally competent, and likely to die within six months. Currently, it is legal in 12 states, as well as Washington DC. All this being said, physician assisted dying is a very controversial topic that is hotly debated in medical ethics. This article hopes to inform on points for and against physician assisted suicide to better understand argumentation on both sides.

For:

An argument for this treatment would be that it respects the autonomy of the patient. A fully competent and informed patient should be able to make a decision concerning their own bodies and medical care, even if the decision they make is not what others would consider “good”. Choosing the time and manner of your own death can be seen as honoring patient self-determination in terminal illness.

When looking at physician assisted death, it can be very appealing for a suffering patient. A physician has a duty to relieve the suffering of a patient, and some terminal conditions can cause a considerable amount of pain and lack of dignity for a patient that cannot be relieved by palliative care. In this case, physician assisted dying could be considered an act of compassion, relieving a patient from continued pain. The alternative may include a prolonged decline, loss of bodily control, and lower quality of life as time goes on. Cutting this short would support dying with dignity.

As for the legal standpoint of this treatment, in the United States it requires strict safeguards for physician assisted dying to be legalized. These include second opinions, waiting periods, mental capacity assessments, etc. This way patients would be sure to be making their own informed decision and prevents unsafe suicide attempts from mentally ill patients. Additionally, legalization does not mean that it would make patients undergo this treatment, rather just making the option available. Patients already have the option to refuse life sustaining treatment, another option that would hasten death in a situation where life could be prolonged. While these are all compelling arguments for the wider legalization of physician assisted suicide, there are arguments against these points.

Against:

A doctor’s duty is to do no harm, and physician assisted suicide goes against this ideal. Intentionally ending the life of a patient conflicts with this duty a doctor has, with medicine traditionally aimed at preserving life. Violation of the principle of non-maleficence is a substantial reason for denying the legalization of physician assisted suicide.

Once legalized, although conditions are currently strict, there is a likelihood that they will loosen over time, and criteria who are eligible could greatly expand. For example, countries like Belgium and the Netherlands have laws that expand eligibility beyond just terminally ill patients. It is a slippery slope that could normalize physician assisted death for large groups of people, and if safeguards slip, it could lead to people getting access to this that should not.

The existence of this could be a risk to venerable populations. Individuals who are elderly, disabled, or in economic hardships could feel pressured into this treatment option. This could stem from feelings of being burdensome to their families or loved ones, or on the healthcare system. This raises further discussion into justice and equity concerns in healthcare.

Lastly, alternatives do exist in the form of palliative care, which is aimed at managing most physical pain at the end of life. It could be more productive to focus on making palliative care more accessible for everyone. Additionally, any psychological suffering could also be treated without ending the life of the patient. If alternatives for physician assisted dying exist that address the same problems without major ethical considerations, then it could be argued that these should be prioritized and physician assisted dying should not be legalized in the first place.

Physician-assisted dying remains one of the most challenging ethical issues in modern medicine because it forces society to confront competing moral principles at the most vulnerable moment of human life. As argumentations for the ethics of physician assisted suicide continue with evolving laws, the debate will not simply be about legality, but about the values that define medicine itself. Ultimately, physician-assisted dying demands careful safeguards, ongoing ethical reflection, and a continued commitment to both compassion and protection at the end of life.