This paper examines the moral debate surrounding physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. It presents key arguments on both sides: opponents cite the sanctity of human life, the risk of abuse, and the incompatibility of assisted dying with medical ethics and the Hippocratic tradition. Proponents argue that personal autonomy entitles individuals to control the end of their lives with dignity and minimal suffering. Drawing on sources from the American Medical Association and academic ethicists, the paper ultimately concludes that the protections afforded by medical ethics and the potential for abuse outweigh arguments rooted in individual autonomy, and that physician-assisted suicide should remain illegal.
Assisted suicide for terminally ill patients may be one of the most morally complex issues facing today's society, with a particular impact on modern healthcare workers. Modern medicine has progressed to a point where, in many instances, life can be prolonged for significant periods of time — well beyond when people would have died of terminal diseases in prior eras. However, there have not been similar advances on the other side of the issue. Death remains a relatively uncharted part of the healthcare spectrum, and there have not been significant advances in helping patients who no longer wish to extend their lives but instead wish to hasten the end of their lives and end their suffering.
The choices remain limited for healthcare workers who, in providing any type of euthanasia, are seen as assisting suicide. This is a deeply morally complex issue. The taboo against the taking of human life — even one's own life — exists in every culture. However, many people believe that compassion demands that we act to end suffering. The arguments against assisted suicide include: the sanctity of human life; the possibility that assisted suicide would be abused, putting innocent lives at stake; and the concern that it would place healthcare professionals in an untenable position. At the same time, there is a strong argument in favor of physician-assisted suicide grounded in the idea that people should have the right to direct their own lives, including the end of their lives.
Perhaps the most common argument against physician-assisted suicide is that all human life is sacred, and that society therefore has a duty to preserve it. "To allow people to assist others in destroying their lives violates a fundamental duty we have to respect human life. A society committed to preserving and protecting life should not commission people to destroy it" (Andre & Velasquez). This appears to be an almost universal imperative. Most of the major world religions consider suicide a sin or other taboo, and in many countries, suicide — as well as assisting another person in committing suicide — is a crime. Allowing physicians to assist in a suicide would run counter to these well-established moral norms that have existed for thousands of years. There is also the concern that sanctioning the taking of human life in one context would spread to others, ultimately devaluing all of human life.
It is also important to keep in mind that physician-assisted suicide could be abused. It is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which family members might urge doctors to help a patient end their life when that patient had no genuine desire to do so. "If assisted suicide is allowed on the basis of mercy or compassion, what will keep us from 'assisting in' and perhaps actively urging the death of anyone whose life we deem worthless or undesirable?" (Andre & Velasquez). This concern is particularly acute with elderly patients, who may not be fully competent and may be vulnerable to pressure from family members.
It would be difficult, if not impossible, for doctors to determine whether a patient's desire to end their life is self-driven or the result of external pressure. Moreover, there is the question of what happens to the patient who changes their mind — which could occur during the very process of assisted suicide, potentially after it is too late for the physician to reverse course.
"Hippocratic tradition and AMA opposition"
"Autonomy, dignity, and quality of life"
Human life is important and deserves societal protection. Permitting assisted suicide risks devaluing all of human life. There is always the possibility that it would be abused, with family members pressuring vulnerable individuals to end their lives in order to hasten financial gain or to avoid the burden of a protracted terminal illness. The strongest argument against physician-assisted suicide rests on medical ethics: the Hippocratic Oath prevents physicians from taking actions that would harm their patients. For these reasons, physician-assisted suicide should remain illegal.
American Medical Association. Opinion 2.211 — Physician Assisted Suicide. AMA, 1994. Web. 7 Dec. 2013.
Andre, Claire, and Manuel Velasquez. "Assisted Suicide: A Right or a Wrong?" N.p., 1987. Web. 7 Dec. 2013.
Darr, Kurt. "Physician-Assisted Suicide: Legal and Ethical Considerations." Journal of Health Law 40.1 (2007): 29–48.
You’re 67% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.