Euthanasia and the Poor: Critiquing Physician-Assisted Suicide
This essay examines the arguments presented by Lynn and Cohn against the legalization of physician-assisted suicide, with particular focus on the risks posed to economically vulnerable populations. Drawing on the AMA's code of ethics and real-world examples from countries where euthanasia is already legal, the paper argues that physician-assisted suicide shifts from a voluntary option to a coercive obligation for those who cannot afford medical care. The author contends that economic pressures, institutional profit motives, and the erosion of the physician's healing role combine to make legalized euthanasia especially dangerous for the poor, ultimately undermining rather than serving the principle of compassionate end-of-life care.
- Introduction: Thesis supporting Lynn and Cohn's anti-legalization argument
- Economic Coercion and the Poor: Financial pressure turns choice into coercion for poor patients
- International Evidence and Real-World Outcomes: Lithuania and other countries show feared outcomes are real
- The AMA's Ethical Position: AMA code warns of risks to vulnerable populations
- The Physician's Eroding Role: Profit motives undermine physician's duty to heal
- Conclusion: Euthanasia in practice becomes coercive, not compassionate
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its ethical argument in economic reality, making an abstract debate concrete by focusing on the financial pressures faced by poor and uninsured patients.
- It supports its claims with an authoritative external source — the AMA's code of medical ethics — giving the argument institutional credibility.
- The paper uses an international example (Lithuania) to demonstrate that the feared outcomes are not hypothetical but already occurring, strengthening the case against legalization.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates textual analysis combined with real-world application: it begins by summarizing the scholarly argument of Lynn and Cohn, then tests that argument against empirical evidence from countries where euthanasia is legal. This move from theoretical claim to observed outcome is a standard and effective method for evaluating policy arguments.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with a clear thesis endorsing Lynn and Cohn's position, then develops that position across three main areas: (1) the economic burden on the poor, (2) international evidence of abuse, and (3) the AMA's ethical stance. A brief section addresses the erosion of the physician's role before a conclusion that restates the core argument. The structure is linear and logical, moving from general concern to specific evidence to institutional authority.
Introduction
Euthanasia has become a hotly contested subject in recent decades. Some are against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide; others support it. The essay "Vulnerable People: Practical Rejoinders to Claims in Favor of Assisted Suicide," by Lynn, argues against legalizing physician-assisted suicide. This paper argues that Cohn and Lynn's case for denying legalization of physician-assisted suicide is sound.
Economic Coercion and the Poor
The first argument explains that physician-assisted suicide may be something people fear rather than favor, due to the notion that someone else will ultimately dictate whether a person lives or dies. The idea that costs and excessive suffering could become the basis for such a determination is deeply troubling. The authors pay particular attention to those who are poor: unlike the middle or upper classes, the poor cannot afford significant medical expenses. If financial inability becomes a factor in approving physician-assisted suicide, many poor people may end up being killed simply because they cannot pay their medical bills.
In the view of Lynn and Cohn, the added pressure of mounting costs would end up bankrupting families. Those who cannot afford supplemental insurance or pay out of pocket would face continuous financial strain, creating stress and additional suffering for patients who do not wish to die and for families who do not wish to lose a loved one. Meanwhile, those with financial means — the "haves" who can afford continuous treatment — remain insulated from these pressures, further widening the divide between economic classes. What appears to be a practical option thus becomes a coercive one: something the poor are compelled to face and the wealthy are free to avoid.
International Evidence and Real-World Outcomes
This argument is supported by what has occurred in countries where euthanasia is already legal. In those nations, euthanasia has in some cases become a mechanism for eliminating the poor, and the pool of those deemed eligible has expanded steadily. As one commentator observed, "Countries that allow euthanasia have already fallen pretty far, allowing for children and people with mental illnesses to be killed" (Fiano, 2014). The speed with which some societies have become comfortable extending euthanasia beyond the terminally ill elderly to other groups raises serious questions about how broadly beneficial the practice truly is.
The fear that poor people would be eliminated in disproportionate numbers due to their inability to pay bills has, in some jurisdictions, become a reality. Lithuanian Health Minister Rimantė Šalaševičiūtė drew international attention by recommending that terminally ill patients who cannot afford their medical bills should be euthanized. The very outcome that critics warned about had materialized. Rather than serving as a compassionate and voluntary option, physician-assisted suicide became a forced outcome for those unable to afford care — even when their families opposed it. Lynn and Cohn warned that physician-assisted suicide could become an obligation for the poor rather than a genuine choice, and these developments lend significant merit to that concern.
Conclusion
Euthanasia in theory has several seemingly beneficial and practical applications. However, in practice it takes on a far more troubling character. Some argue that euthanasia reduces overall medical expenses, but hospitals and medical facilities can reduce costs through efficient budgeting and care delivery, and patients can lower their own risk through preventive healthcare and healthy lifestyles. The notion that a person in their final hours must face not only suffering but also the pressure to die earlier than desired — simply because they cannot afford medical care — is fundamentally inhumane.
The poor already face enormous hardship without being made to feel obligated to end their lives when they cannot pay for treatment of a terminal or severe illness. The practicality that euthanasia appears to offer dissolves when real-world application replaces voluntary choice with coercion. Euthanasia thus risks becoming a convenient mechanism for eliminating the poor rather than a means of genuinely addressing their suffering. This is precisely why Cohn and Lynn's arguments remain sound: they account for the experiences and outcomes of those without financial resources, not merely those with the means to exercise genuine options.
References
AMA. (2016). Opinion 2.21 — Euthanasia. American Medical Association. Retrieved April 7, 2016, from
Fiano, C. (2014). Lithuanian health minister pushing for euthanasia of the poor. Live Action News. Retrieved April 7, 2016, from http://liveactionnews.org/lithuanian-health-minister-pushing-for-euthanasia-of-the-poor/
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.