Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Utilitarian Ethical Argument
This essay argues that physician-assisted suicide should be legal and that terminally ill patients suffering from intolerable pain should have the right to choose death. Drawing on hedonistic and preference utilitarian frameworks, the paper examines patient autonomy and self-determination, the physician's ethical duty to honor patient wishes, and the assignment of rights in a medical context. The essay also addresses the "slippery slope" criticism by citing evidence from the Netherlands and Oregon, ultimately concluding that forcing patients to remain alive against their will is ethically unjustifiable when their only prospect is continued suffering.
- Introduction: The Ethics of Dying: Central questions on assisted dying and thesis statement
- Self-Determination and the Right to Choose Death: Autonomy limits and utilitarian case for patient choice
- Autonomy, Physician Duty, and the Assignment of Rights: Assigning rights to physicians as extension of care
- The Physician's Duty and the Limits of Life-Prolonging Technology: Technology, natural law, and duty to honor patient wishes
- The Slippery Slope Objection Examined: Empirical evidence from Oregon and the Netherlands
- The Meaning of Life and the Final Act of Autonomy: Philosophical definition of life and final self-determination
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its argument in recognizable ethical frameworks — hedonistic and preference utilitarianism — giving the analysis clear philosophical structure rather than relying on appeals to emotion alone.
- It anticipates and directly refutes the most common counterargument (the slippery slope) with empirical evidence from Oregon and the Netherlands, strengthening the overall case.
- The use of an extended analogy (property rights and in loco parentis) effectively illustrates the abstract concept of assigning one's rights to another person.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper exemplifies the technique of philosophical reframing: it takes an emotionally charged issue (assisted dying) and repositions each objection within an established ethical framework, showing that what critics call a "moral wrong" can be read, under utilitarian and autonomy-based analysis, as a moral duty. This reframing is sustained throughout every section rather than applied only once.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with a series of rhetorical questions that orient the reader to its central claims, then builds through six identifiable movements: establishing the utilitarian basis for self-determination; defending the assignment of rights to a physician; questioning the duty to prolong life technologically; refuting the slippery slope criticism with real-world evidence; and closing with a philosophical meditation on what constitutes a meaningful human life. Each section adds a distinct layer to the cumulative argument.
Introduction: The Ethics of Dying
When a person is in inexorable pain — suffering physically and even mentally, with no hope for recovery — should they be able to seek relief through death? What is the physician's responsibility when they cannot assuage their patient's suffering? Is their duty to prolong basic bodily functions, or is their duty to stop pain? If a patient seeks death and is unable to obtain the means to end their own suffering, does their physician have an ethical obligation to provide those means, even if doing so brings about the patient's death?
According to John Lachs, Peter Singer, and others, the case for answering yes to these questions — from both a hedonistic utilitarian and a preference utilitarian perspective — is strong. Physician-assisted suicide should be legal, and patients suffering from intolerable pain should be free to choose death over a life of agony.
Self-Determination and the Right to Choose Death
How far does a human being's autonomy extend? It would be foolhardy to claim that a person's right to self-determination is absolute; society would cease to function if we respected the rights of robbers to rob and murderers to murder. A person's right to self-determination reasonably ends when their actions impinge upon another person's right to autonomy. However, the decision to end one's own life does not interfere with another person's rights or liberties in any way.
From a utilitarian perspective, an act is morally right "if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone" (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). If an otherwise healthy person chose to end their life on a whim, one could argue that the consequences would be negative for that person's friends, family members, employers, and others who depend on them. However, when a patient with a terminal illness or terminal pain chooses to end their life, the distinction is less clear. Terminal illness devastates not only the patient but also their loved ones, who must witness the suffering helplessly. When the end result is death and the interim is only agony, hastening death in a peaceful way benefits everyone. If the patient wishes to end their life, then from a utilitarian perspective, this act is morally correct.
Autonomy, Physician Duty, and the Assignment of Rights
It can be argued that in the case of physician-assisted suicide, because the doctor is the one bringing about the death, this constitutes "a fundamental moral wrong — that of one person giving over 'his life and fate to another'" (Lachs, 4). But people assign their rights to others all the time, and they are free to do so; this is itself part of autonomy. A homeowner is free to let whomever they wish live in their home, with the occupant enjoying all the benefits of that home. Similarly, one allows schools to act in loco parentis with their children. Are we to say that a terminally ill patient surrenders the ability to assign their rights simply because they are in pain?
If a terminally ill patient desires to die but lacks the means to do so, the most appropriate person to provide those means is their physician. Furthermore, the patient has already assigned the rights of care to their physician; providing a peaceful death, when the patient so chooses, is an extension of that care. The modern version of the Hippocratic Oath reads: "But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God." What could be more aptly described as "playing God" than denying a patient's own wishes to end their suffering, especially when the physician is unable to alleviate their anguish?
Works Cited
"Ethics." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 19 March 2011.
The Hippocratic Oath: Modern Version. PBS.com. 19 March 2011.
Lachs, John. "When Abstract Moralizing Runs Amok." (book information not included in original source).
Singer, Peter. "Voluntary Euthanasia: A Utilitarian Perspective." (book information not included in original source).
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.