Physician-Assisted Suicide: Ethics, Choice, and Dignity
This paper examines the ethical dimensions of physician-assisted suicide through the contrasting experiences of Brittany Maynard and Stephanie, two terminally ill women who made different end-of-life choices. The author argues that patient autonomy — not uniform policy — should guide end-of-life decisions, and that making physician-assisted suicide illegal does not eliminate suffering but instead removes a qualified medical professional from the process. The paper also addresses physician responsibilities, including assessing mental competency, respecting patient privacy, and maintaining compassionate, case-by-case clinical judgment. Broader questions about psychiatric disorders and legal permissibility in countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium are also considered.
- Introduction: Brittany Maynard and the Case for Choice: Maynard's testimony frames the case for assisted suicide
- Comparing Different Patients, Different Choices: Two patients' choices compared without moral hierarchy
- The Role of the Physician in End-of-Life Care: Physicians must balance ethics, wellness, and patient wishes
- Mental Competency and Ethical Safeguards: Assessing competency and protecting patient autonomy
- Conclusion: A Case-by-Case Approach to Dying with Dignity: Individualized clinical judgment guides end-of-life decisions
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its ethical argument in concrete, emotionally resonant real-world examples — Brittany Maynard and Stephanie — rather than relying solely on abstract principles, making the argument accessible and persuasive.
- The author demonstrates intellectual fairness by acknowledging Stephanie's opposing view sympathetically before clearly distinguishing why her experience does not invalidate the alternative choice.
- The paper connects personal clinical perspective to broader policy implications, showing how criminalizing assisted suicide does not eliminate suffering but simply removes professional oversight.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper effectively uses a counterargument structure: it introduces and respectfully engages with an opposing viewpoint (Stephanie's story) before systematically dismantling the claim that one patient's choice undermines another's. This technique strengthens the overall argument by showing the author has considered multiple perspectives before arriving at a reasoned position.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with Brittany Maynard's testimony to establish emotional and ethical stakes, then moves to compare two opposing real-life cases. The middle sections address the physician's ethical obligations and the importance of mental competency assessments. The paper closes with a first-person reflection on how a physician should approach end-of-life decisions on a case-by-case basis, tying clinical reasoning to ethical compassion.
Introduction: Brittany Maynard and the Case for Choice
Brittany Maynard's 2015 video, posted by the British newspaper The Guardian, is a heartbreaking testament to the intelligence and forethought this young woman placed into her decision to request life-ending medication. It highlights that individuals who reject palliative sedation for the terminally ill do so because, like Maynard, they fear the suffering and the loss of functioning that prolonged dying can cause. Given that patients like Maynard had already lost significant functioning and quality of life — Maynard had brain cancer — forcing them to take matters into their own hands and attempt to orchestrate their own deaths without the assistance of a physician seems cruel.
A physician should always be a facilitator of improved quality of life and wellness. While this usually means helping the patient achieve a better and higher quality of life, in Maynard's case, a peaceful death was her goal, rather than enduring an agonizing death or an artificially prolonged life. Of course, Stephanie's story (2015) is incredibly moving, and she demonstrates great courage in the face of her suffering and the uncertainty of her own future. However, it is not fair to compare the two experiences of these two women — their pain, their challenges, and the stages of their disease are all unique.
Comparing Different Patients, Different Choices
The fact that Stephanie made one choice and Maynard made another does not make one more valid than the other. What is worth challenging in Stephanie's perspective is the suggestion that allowing some individuals to choose assisted suicide somehow invalidates her own choice. Ultimately, choice is what matters. It is also very difficult to compare the pain tolerance and outlook associated with different diseases.
A terminally ill patient — in pain and potentially debilitated — who makes a competent choice to end their life is not necessarily "giving up," as Stephanie suggests. It may be that they are giving up pain, not giving up on life. Patients who choose to die with dignity are, like all individuals facing major life decisions, making a choice that is best for themselves after consulting with friends, family members, and a trusted medical provider. Making physician-assisted suicide illegal merely removes the physician from the equation. It does not cure terminal illnesses, stop the mental and physical suffering caused by disease, or prevent patients who wish to die with dignity from seeking relief — it simply forces them to do so without professional guidance.
The Role of the Physician in End-of-Life Care
It should be noted that in both cases highlighted in the videos, neither woman suffered from a clinical psychiatric disorder. In a few countries — the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg — severely affected patients with psychological as well as physical disorders can request assistance in dying, but this raises important questions about competency and about which types of illnesses are deemed legally permissible under such laws (Grassi et al., 2022). Regardless, Maynard clearly wished to receive assistance in passing before she became incapacitated by her brain tumor.
Despite the ethical reservations a physician might experience when facilitating dying rather than preserving life, a physician must also commit to the wellness and expressed wishes of the patient and to evaluating relative quality of life. Only the patient knows what it is like to live within her own body and mind at any given moment. The physician can offer guidance about disease progression but should not render a moral judgment upon the patient. As noted by scholars examining euthanasia and physician-assisted death, the clinical and ethical dimensions of these decisions are deeply intertwined and require careful, individualized assessment.
Conclusion: A Case-by-Case Approach to Dying with Dignity
As a healthcare provider, I hope I would ultimately be guided by my technical knowledge as a physician, my ethically informed compassion, and also by the knowledge I had gained over the years treating patients with similar illnesses. I would make decisions on a case-by-case basis rather than adopting a uniform approach to treatment — which should be the standard for all illnesses, terminal or otherwise.
References
Grassi, L., Folesani, F., Marella, M., Tiberto, E., Riba, M. B., Bortolotti, L., Toffanin, T., Palagini, L., Belvederi Murri, M., Biancosino, B., Ferrara, M., & Caruso, R. (2022). Debating euthanasia and physician-assisted death in people with psychiatric disorders. Current Psychiatry Reports, 24(6), 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-022-01339-y
Stephanie's story — a case against assisted suicide. (2015, May 8). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01bwxtzFub8
Terminally ill Brittany Maynard's message recorded before her death — video. (2015, March 25). The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/mar/25/brittany-maynard-death-with-dignity-video
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.