The Right to Physician-Assisted Suicide: Arguments For and Against

Introduction

Many Americans who have been fortunate enough to live physically and mentally healthy lives may struggle to understand why anyone would want to voluntarily end their life. Yet it is clear that certain conditions — including even non-terminal disorders — require more than just palliative care in order to preserve the dignity and autonomy of individual patients. At present, physician-assisted suicide remains illegal in the majority of the world's approximately 200 nations. However, there has been a growing recognition among some countries, including the United States, that the practice is a humanitarian necessity long overdue for legalization.

To determine the relevant facts, this paper provides an analysis of the rationale used by both sides of this controversial issue in support of their respective positions, with the overarching goal of confirming the right to physician-assisted suicide. The paper concludes with a summary of the research and key findings.

The debate over physician-assisted suicide has been emotionally charged, and proponents and critics alike tend to rely on religious or moral arguments in support of their respective positions. According to Keown, "Whether the criminal law should permit doctors intentionally to end the lives of patients on request is probably the most important debate in contemporary law, medicine and ethics. Unfortunately, in that debate emotion often trumps reason, generating more heat than light" (2018: 55). The contentiousness of this debate is readily understandable, given the severity and finality of ending someone's life irrespective of any other factors.

Why Physician-Assisted Suicide Should Not Be Legal

Critics of physician-assisted suicide maintain that existing protections for patient autonomy already provide healthcare consumers with the ability to forego treatments — including medications — that may prolong their lives. They argue that laws legalizing physician-assisted suicide are not only unnecessary, but may cause some people to opt for this end-of-life solution when viable interventions are still available (O'Rourke et al. 2017). O'Rourke and his associates emphasize that "the desire for control over the timing and circumstances of death is not, however, a sufficient reason to pass legislation to legalize physician-assisted suicide" (683).

Although these physicians do not specifically elaborate on what reasons would be sufficient to legalize physician-assisted suicide, they point out that multiple factors may compel some people to seek end-of-life solutions due to a transient impaired state caused by depression, anxiety, pain, or other medical issues (O'Rourke et al. 2017). Similarly, many medical authorities argue against legal physician-assisted suicide because it is "fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks" (Frank 2016: 36). Research to date indicates that when patients suffering from severe medical conditions and corresponding mental health issues who actively seek physician-assisted suicide are treated for those mental health conditions, they tend to withdraw their requests for end-of-life interventions (O'Rourke et al.).

These outcomes underscore the finality of physician-assisted suicide and make it clear that not everyone agrees on formally legalizing the practice. As O'Rourke et al. conclude, "The autonomy arguments for legalizing physician-assisted suicide fall short in part because the harms to the patient, to medical professionalism, and to the physician-patient relationship outweigh the needs of those who seek ultimate control over their time of death" (686). These powerful and persuasive arguments are, however, countered by equally compelling arguments from supporters of physician-assisted suicide.

Conclusion

It is reasonable to conclude that some opponents of physician-assisted suicide have never suffered a chronic, agonizing medical condition or personally witnessed a close loved one experience a lingering and painful death while healthcare providers attempted to prolong life as long as possible. Because innovations in medical technology and devices have contributed to longer lifespans, people are living far longer than just a century ago. These same innovations, however, have also exacerbated age-related health problems to the point where far too many people suffer needlessly while they waste away in a twilight state. The time has come for physician-assisted suicide to be legalized throughout the country.

Works Cited

Eberl, J. T. "I Am My Brother's Keeper: Communitarian Obligations to the Dying Person." Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality, vol. 24, no. 1, 2018, pp. 38–58.

Frank, John N. "Physician-Assisted Suicide up for Debate in States." Medical Economics, vol. 93, no. 9, May 2016, pp. 36–38.

Keown, John. "'Voluntary Assisted Dying' in Australia: The Victorian Parliamentary Committee's Tenuous Case for Legalization." Issues in Law & Medicine, vol. 33, no. 1, Spring 2018, pp. 55–81.

O'Rourke, Mark A., et al. "Reasons to Reject Physician Assisted Suicide/Physician Aid in Dying." Journal of Oncology Practice, vol. 13, no. 10, 2017, pp. 683–686.

"States with Legal Physician-Assisted Suicide." ProCon.org, 2022, euthanasia.procon.org/states-with-legal-physician-assisted-suicide/.