Physician Assisted Suicide Ethics

Most individuals, especially those fond of medical dramas, know of the Hippocratic Oath and its primary obligation of doing no harm; however, the vow physicians take before graduating medical school is being challenged by physician assisted suicide, also known as PAS. Individuals diagnosed with a terminal illness that causes pain and suffering towards the end of life will pick a date to painlessly die before their disease progresses too far. As this practice becomes more widespread, arguments over the ethics of medical doctors aiding in the suicide of their ill patients have erupted. Some argue that in doing so, doctors violate the Hippocratic Oath while stripping the patient of their personal autonomy. Those who support the decision to commit
According to an activist organization, Death with Dignity, Oregon was the first state to pass legislation allowing physicians to prescribe a killing dose of barbiturates in 1994. The most recent state to pass a similar act was Vermont in 2013 (Death with Dignity). These acts, also found in California, Colorado, and Washington, allow mentally competent adult residents with a terminal illness to apply for an oral barbiturate that they must be able to self-administer (Death with Dignity). While the Death with Dignity laws provide a physician with legal backing to administer a means to commit suicide, it is up to the individual doctor’s discretion to exert this right (Death with Dignity). Some may choose to deny their patients PAS as a possible treatment due to personal discomfort with the process or because they are employed by an organization that disagrees for religious reasons (Death with Dignity). It should be noted that eligible participants in PAS cannot just ask for medication, they must complete various forms, often including a psychological evaluation, and a mandatory waiting period (Death with Dignity). Once this process is completed, the patient is provided a barbiturate that they self-administer which causes them to fall asleep and, within twelve hours, die (Death with Dignity). Physician assisted suicide is a completely voluntary choice for those
In her article, “Thank God Hippocrates Was Pagan”, Jennifer Lahl comments that many non-secular arguments against PAS are mostly ignored; however, arguments regarding the fairness of Death with Dignity laws are strong contenders over the debate regarding PAS (40). She questions whether it is right that only those who are terminally ill can legally end their suffering when others cannot since they are not terminal (Lahl 41). Her contention should be acknowledged when considering possible solutions since one of the pro-PAS arguments is that personal autonomy allows for choice. Another article, a critique written by Manne Sjöstrand, Gert Helgesson, Stefan Eriksson, and Niklas Juth, analyzes two anti-PAS points of view (226). Though Sjöstrand et al. do not argue against PAS, their analysis of protesters’ arguments contribute an unbiased overview of justifications the protesters provide regarding their stance (229). One argument considers autonomy to be a prudential value which should not be compromised by actions that prevent future autonomy, such as suicide (Sjöstrand et al. 227). The other, referred to as the Kantian argument, claims that suicide undermines the value of one’s person (Sjöstrand et al. 228). Where supporters of PAS believe personal autonomy grants patients the freedom the commit suicide, protesters believe the same personal autonomy should be