Should Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal in the US?
This paper argues that physician-assisted suicide should be permitted throughout the United States, provided that strong regulatory safeguards are in place. Drawing on healthcare cost trends, patient autonomy, and the physician's moral obligation to relieve suffering, the paper builds a case for expanding access to this end-of-life option. It also addresses opposition claims — particularly fears of coercion and the erosion of physician trust — by examining over two decades of data from Oregon, the only U.S. state where the practice has been legally permitted since 1997. The evidence suggests that worst-case predictions have not materialized.
- Introduction: Context, thesis, and scope of argument
- Patient Autonomy and the Demand for End-of-Life Options: Patient rights, costs, and quality-of-life rationale
- The Physician's Moral Duty to Relieve Suffering: Ethical obligation to end terminal suffering
- Addressing Opposition: Evidence from Oregon: Oregon data refutes coercion and abuse fears
- Conclusion: Summary of case for regulated access
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds an emotionally charged ethical argument in concrete data, citing Oregon's 25-year legislative record to counter opposition claims rather than relying solely on moral reasoning.
- It anticipates and directly rebuts the strongest counterargument — that physicians will be seen as coercive — by distinguishing between absolute numbers and percentage increases in assisted-suicide rates.
- The essay connects the micro-level (individual patient suffering) to macro-level policy concerns (rising healthcare costs as a share of GDP), giving the argument both personal and systemic weight.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates concession and rebuttal: it acknowledges the opposition's concern about physician integrity and patient coercion before systematically dismantling it with empirical data from Oregon's post-1997 experience. This technique strengthens credibility by showing the writer has genuinely engaged with the counterargument rather than ignored it.
Structure breakdown
The essay follows a classic persuasive structure: an introduction establishing context and a clear thesis, two affirmative body paragraphs (patient rights and physician duty), one counterargument-and-rebuttal paragraph using Oregon as a case study, and a brief conclusion. Each body section advances a distinct line of reasoning, and transitions between sections are logical and sequential.
Introduction
Healthcare treatment and procedures have recently become a contentious and captivating topic for society at large. The COVID-19 pandemic illustrated the divergent and often confusing healthcare policies that affect consumers across the country. Each state often maintains different rules, regulations, and policies related to healthcare treatment options. These issues have been exacerbated by the recent rise in healthcare costs, which has prompted a comprehensive review of applicable healthcare policies and procedures. In addition, the innovations of telehealth and telemedicine have also prompted a much more thorough examination of not only healthcare services, but how those services are being administered.
One such procedure is physician-assisted suicide. This has become a particularly contentious topic since the COVID-19 pandemic saw an increase in overall healthcare-related deaths. Research conducted by O'Carroll found that physician-assisted suicides increased nearly 30% during the COVID-19 pandemic. Admittedly, these figures start from a very low baseline, as assisted suicides remain rare and uncommon. However, making the option available as a viable healthcare service is warranted under certain circumstances. Although controversial, physician-assisted suicide should be permitted throughout the United States — provided that strong controls and safeguards are in place to address the concerns raised by its opponents.
Patient Autonomy and the Demand for End-of-Life Options
Physician-assisted suicide should be permitted because it provides a service that is genuinely needed by some members of society. Although rare, there are instances in which a patient may elect this option. An individual may be experiencing such an extraordinary degree of pain that physician-assisted suicide represents the only meaningful relief available. In such circumstances, the patient may also wish to avoid burdening family members with escalating medical bills.
This financial dimension is becoming an increasingly prominent factor in end-of-life decision-making as healthcare costs continue to rise for a variety of reasons. Currently, healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP stands at approximately 18%. Analysts project that this figure could climb to 20% of GDP by 2030, at which point total healthcare expenditures would reach roughly $5 trillion, or approximately $12,000 per person. This trajectory is unsustainable and contributes to the circumstances in which patients consider physician-assisted suicide.
Although it is a difficult topic to discuss, patients may elect physician-assisted suicide when their condition is untenable. If the likelihood of meaningful survival is extremely low, it may benefit both the patient and their loved ones to have this option available. It has been documented that some patients who choose the procedure have donated organs, blood, and other essential tissues to others with a higher chance of survival. Furthermore, their families are not left burdened with significant credit card or other forms of debt incurred in an effort to prolong a life with little prospect of recovery. Physician-assisted suicide provides patients with the rights and liberties to determine the manner of their death on their own terms. Although uncomfortable, this option gives patients a higher degree of flexibility regarding their overall treatment choices.
The Physician's Moral Duty to Relieve Suffering
Physicians have a moral duty to relieve suffering. That statement, by itself, can be interpreted in a number of ways. What does "relieve suffering" mean, and to what extent will the healthcare community act on that obligation? This duty must also be understood within the context of several factors that can affect a patient's life, including family responsibilities, community ties, and broader social considerations.
As it relates to physician-assisted suicide, however, patients who are terminally ill should have the option to end their suffering if they so choose. It is ethically problematic to require a terminally ill individual to continue suffering when they desire a more peaceful transition into death. Denying this option in the name of preserving the physician's image as a healer does not serve the patient's best interests.
Conclusion
Although controversial, physician-assisted suicide offers patients meaningful control over their end-of-life experience. The evidence from Oregon demonstrates that fears of widespread abuse have not materialized. Combined with the moral obligation physicians have to relieve suffering and the very real financial pressures patients and families face, there is a compelling case for permitting physician-assisted suicide throughout the United States. Any such expansion should, however, be accompanied by robust safeguards to ensure that the decision is always voluntary, informed, and free from coercion.
References
O'Carroll, Noreen. "Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia and the Dying with Dignity Bill 2020." Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, vol. 110, no. 438, 2021, pp. 142–57, Accessed 24 Apr. 2022.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.