Palliative Care vs. Physician-Assisted Suicide: Key Arguments
This paper examines the debate between palliative care and physician-assisted suicide, arguing that excellent palliative care is the preferable approach for patients with life-threatening or incurable conditions. The paper outlines multiple arguments against physician-assisted suicide, including its incompatibility with the healing goals of medicine, its potential to erode patient dignity, and its risk of leading to indiscriminate killing. It also fairly presents the main arguments in favor of physician-assisted suicide, such as patient autonomy, respect for cultural diversity, and relief from debilitating suffering. Drawing on both secular and biblical perspectives, the paper concludes that palliative care better upholds the core values of the medical profession.
- Introduction to Palliative Care and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Defines palliative care and frames the central debate
- Reasons Against Physician-Assisted Suicide: Ethical, legal, and biblical arguments against assisted suicide
- Incompatibility with the Goals of Medicine: Assisted suicide contradicts medicine's core healing mission
- When Palliative Care Renders Assisted Suicide Unnecessary: Good palliative care eliminates need for assisted suicide
- Arguments in Favor of Physician-Assisted Suicide: Autonomy, cultural diversity, and relief from suffering arguments
- Conclusion: Palliative care affirmed as preferable to assisted suicide
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper presents a clear thesis early — that excellent palliative care is preferable to physician-assisted suicide — and systematically builds toward it using multiple distinct arguments.
- It demonstrates intellectual fairness by dedicating a substantial section to the strongest arguments in favor of physician-assisted suicide before reaffirming the thesis in the conclusion.
- The use of both secular reasoning (constitutional rights, medical professional standards) and religious reasoning (biblical examples) broadens the paper's appeal and illustrates multi-perspective ethical analysis.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper employs a structured refutation strategy: it first builds a strong case against physician-assisted suicide across several sub-arguments, then steelmans the opposing view, and finally synthesizes both sides in a conclusion that reaffirms the original thesis. This technique — sometimes called the "concession-refutation" model — demonstrates critical thinking and academic honesty, which are hallmarks of ethical argumentation in applied ethics writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a definitional introduction establishing what palliative care and physician-assisted suicide are. It then moves through five distinct arguments against physician-assisted suicide (illegality/ethics, incompatibility with medicine's goals, redundancy given good palliative care, poor care as a trigger, and slippery-slope risk). A counterargument section presents four pro-assisted-suicide positions (avoiding suffering, patient autonomy, cultural diversity, and state non-interference). The conclusion synthesizes both sides and restates the thesis.
Introduction to Palliative Care and Physician-Assisted Suicide
Palliative care represents an approach that aims at improving the quality of life of patients and their families who are experiencing problems associated with life-threatening illness. It does so through the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early identification of illness, impeccable assessment, and the eventual treatment of pain and other related problems. Palliative care offers crucial benefits to patients by affirming life and regarding death as a normal process. This medical approach also performs the vital role of relieving patients from pain and other distressing symptoms. Palliative care practices neither hasten nor postpone death; rather, it offers a significant support system for patients throughout the process of illness until death.
Palliative care also enables health personnel to address the concerns of patients and their families in relation to suffering. In the contemporary world, several arguments exist regarding the effectiveness of palliative care in enhancing support systems for patients. Some argue against physician-assisted suicide while other experts support the notion with the aim of improving quality of life. Physician-assisted suicide refers to the context in which a physician facilitates the death of a patient by providing the information necessary to enable the patient to execute the life-ending act. Given the significant arguments in favor of palliative care, it is appropriate to conclude that excellent palliative care is preferable to physician-assisted suicide.
Reasons Against Physician-Assisted Suicide
Palliative care entails the provision of health care to patients whose conditions are incurable, while physician-assisted suicide involves enabling such patients to execute a life-ending act. Suicide is a wrong act within society and therefore should not prevail in the context of medicine.2 Physician-assisted suicide enables a patient to terminate his or her suffering because of an incurable illness, typically after consultation between relatives and the physician. Physician-assisted suicide amounts to a form of killing — a vice within society. Even the Christian Holy Bible condemns murder and suicide. This argument draws from the notion that murder is illegal both in the Bible and under relevant constitutional acts. For instance, one of the Ten Commandments states, "Thou shalt not kill," making it unlawful to commit suicide or participate in a life-ending act from a biblical perspective.
It is also clear from various constitutions that citizens have the right to life, making it a criminal offence to kill or participate in the killing of any citizen under constitutional protection. Since physician-assisted suicide is illegal from both biblical and secular perspectives, it is unethical to practice it within the medical profession. It is necessary to allow patients, regardless of their condition, to enjoy their right to life and not to execute life-ending actions. This makes it vital to practice excellent palliative care in preference to physician-assisted suicide in order to improve the quality of life of patients.
Incompatibility with the Goals of Medicine
Physician-assisted suicide is incompatible with the healing goals of the medical profession.3 Medicine refers to the art and science of healing. It is scientific in nature because it adopts knowledge through critical study and experimentation, and it is an art because of the skillful acts required of doctors and other medical practitioners in handling patients. Medicine aims to achieve three vital goals: save lives, relieve suffering, and enhance the dignity of all patients regardless of the nature of their illness. This indicates that excellent palliative care promotes the goals of the medical profession, while physician-assisted suicide is contrary to its expectations.
Palliative care improves the quality of life of the patient and thus enables the medical profession to promote patient dignity. Individuals who commit suicide are often perceived as unable to confront their challenges in life. This notion applies to patients who participate in physician-assisted suicide, who may suffer degradation of dignity as a result. Such degradation illustrates that the medical profession has failed to meet its goal of improving the dignity of all patients regardless of their conditions. Since medicine also aims at saving lives rather than ending them, it is essential to apply excellent palliative care rather than physician-assisted suicide.
In the presence of appropriate palliative care, physician-assisted suicide is unnecessary within the medical profession.4 While physician-assisted suicide aims at reducing patient suffering when a condition appears incurable, palliative care performs the same role of minimizing suffering in such cases. Since both practices serve a similar purpose, it is vital to adopt the most appropriate one — ethically and practically. Palliative care is the more appropriate practice because of its minimal negative side effects, such as the avoidance of dignity degradation. This makes physician-assisted suicide unnecessary within the medical profession.
Conclusion
Palliative care attempts to improve the quality of health care practices for patients whose conditions appear to be incurable. This medical practice is acceptable within the profession of medicine because it promotes patient dignity, saves lives, and reduces the extent of suffering. Palliative care draws support from both secular and biblical perspectives, making it the most appropriate medical practice compared to physician-assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide, while aligned with patient autonomy and offering an escape from severe suffering, ultimately represents an unethical approach to managing life. It is an expression of inadequacy within the medical profession and should not prevail in determining how to handle patients with serious conditions. Since excellent palliative care promotes the goals of medicine, it is preferable to physician-assisted suicide.
References
DeGrazia, David, Thomas A. Mappes, and Jeffrey Brand-Ballard. Biomedical Ethics, 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011.
Dyck, Arthur. Life's Worth: The Case against Assisted Suicide. Eerdmans, 2002.
Lynn, Joanne, Janice Lynch Schuster, and Joan Harrold. Handbook for Mortals: Guidance for People Facing Serious Illness, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, 2011.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.