active euthanasia essay

We have a right to die with dignity. The medical profession has a duty to assist

Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Director: Centre for Applied Ethics, Stellenbosch University

Disclosure statement

Anton van Niekerk is director of the Centre for Applied Ethics and Head of the Unit for Bioethics in that Centre. The Unit receives an annual contribution from Mediclinic, but that is not for the exclusive use of Anton van Niekerk.

Stellenbosch University provides funding as a partner of The Conversation AFRICA.

View all partners

Euthanasia represents one of the oldest issues in medical ethics. It is forbidden in the original Hippocratic Oath, and has consistently been opposed by most religious traditions since antiquity – other than, incidentally, abortion, which has only been formally banned by the Catholic Church since the middle of the 19th century.

Euthanasia is a wide topic with many dimensions. I will limit myself in this article to the issue of assisted death, which seems to me to be one of the most pressing issues of our time.

Desmond Tutu, emeritus archbishop of Cape Town, raised it again on his 85th birthday in an article in the Washington Post. He wrote:

I have prepared for my death and have made it clear that I do not wish to be kept alive at all costs. I hope I am treated with compassion and allowed to pass onto the next phase of life’s journey in the manner of my choice.

Assisted death can take the form of physician assisted suicide (PAS) . Here a suffering and terminal patient is assisted by a physician to gain access to a lethal substance which the patient himself or herself takes or administers. If incapable of doing so, the physician – on request of the patient – administers the lethal substance which terminates the patient’s life.

The latter procedure is also referred to as “voluntary active euthanasia” (VAE). I will not deal with the issue of involuntary euthanasia –where the suffering patient’s life is terminated without their explicit consent -– a procedure which, to my mind, is ethically much more problematic.

Passive form of euthanasia

The term “voluntary active euthanasia” suggests that there also is a passive form of euthanasia. It is passive in the sense that nothing is “actively” done to kill the patient, but that nothing is done to deter the process of dying either, and that the termination of life-support which is clearly futile, is permitted.

However, the moral significance of the distinction between “active” and “passive” euthanasia is increasingly questioned by ethicists. The reason simply is the credibility of arguing that administering a lethal agent is “active”, but terminating life support (for example switching off a ventilator) is “passive”. Both clearly are observable and describable actions, and both are the direct causes of the patient’s death.

There are a number of reasons for the opposition to physician assisted suicide or voluntary active euthanasia. The value bestowed on human life in all religious traditions and almost all cultures, such as the prohibition on murder is so pervasive that it is an element of common, and not statutory, law.

Objections from the medical profession to being seen or utilised as “killers” rather than saviours of human life, as well as the sometimes well-founded fear of the possible abuse of physician assisted suicide or voluntary active euthanasia, is a further reason. The main victims of such possible abuse could well be the most vulnerable and indigent members of society: the poor, the disabled and the like. Those who cannot pay for prolonged accommodation in expensive health care facilities and intensive care units.

Death with dignity

In support of physician assisted suicide or voluntary active euthanasia, the argument is often made that, as people have the right to live with dignity, they also have the right to die with dignity. Some medical conditions are simply so painful and unnecessarily prolonged that the capability of the medical profession to alleviate suffering by means of palliative care is surpassed.

Intractable terminal suffering robs the victims of most of their dignity. In addition, medical science and practice is currently capable of an unprecedented prolongation of human life. It can be a prolongation that too often results in a concomitant prolongation of unnecessary and pointless suffering.

Enormous pressure is placed upon both families and the health care system to spend time and very costly resources on patients that have little or no chance of recovery and are irrevocably destined to die. It is, so the argument goes, not inhumane or irreverent to assist such patients – particularly if they clearly and repeatedly so request – to bring their lives to an end.

I am personally much more in favour of the pro-PAS and pro-VAE positions, although the arguments against do raise issues that need to be addressed. Most of those issues (for example the danger of the exploitation of vulnerable patients) I believe, can be satisfactorily dealt with by regulation.

Argument in favour of assisted suicide

The most compelling argument in favour of physician assisted suicide or voluntary active euthanasia is the argument in support of committing suicide in a democracy. The right to commit suicide is, as far as I am concerned, simply one of the prices we have to be willing to pay as citizens of a democracy.

We do not have the right, and we play no discernible role, in coming into existence. But we do have the right to decide how long we remain in existence. The fact that we have the right to suicide, does not mean that it is always (morally) right to execute that right.

It is hard to deny the right of an 85-year-old with terminal cancer of the pancreas and almost no family and friends left, to commit suicide or ask for assisted death. In this case, he or she both has the right, and will be in the right if exercising that right.

Compare that with the situation of a 40-year-old man, a husband and father of three young children, who has embezzled company funds and now has to face the music in court. He, also, has the right to commit suicide. But, I would argue, it would not be morally right for him to do so, given the dire consequences for his family. To have a right, does not imply that it is always right to execute that right.

My argument in favour of physician assisted suicide or voluntary active euthanasia is thus grounded in the right to suicide, which I think is fundamental to a democracy.

Take the case of a competent person who is terminally ill, who will die within the next six months and has no prospect of relief or cure. This person suffers intolerably and/or intractably, often because of an irreversible dependence on life-support. This patient repeatedly, say at least twice a week, requests that his/her life be terminated. I am convinced that to perform physician assisted suicide or voluntary active euthanasia in this situation is not only the humane and respectful, but the morally justified way to go.

The primary task of the medical profession is not to prolong life or to promote health, but to relieve suffering. We have a right to die with dignity, and the medical profession has a duty to assist in that regard.

• Assisted suicide
• Voluntary euthanasia
• Desmond Tutu
• World Philosophy Day
• Philosophy2021

Senior Research Fellow - Curtin Institute for Energy Transition (CIET)

Research Grants Officer

Laboratory Head - RNA Biology

Head of School, School of Arts & Social Sciences, Monash University Malaysia

Chief Operating Officer (COO)

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Voluntary Euthanasia

The entry sets out five conditions often said to be necessary for anyone to be a candidate for legalized voluntary euthanasia (and, with appropriate qualifications, physician-assisted suicide), outlines the moral case advanced by those in favor of legalizing voluntary euthanasia, and discusses the five most important objections made by those who deny that voluntary euthanasia is morally permissible and who are, in consequence, opposed to its being legalized.

1. Introduction

2. five conditions often proposed as necessary for candidacy for voluntary euthanasia, 3. a moral case for voluntary euthanasia, 4. five objections to the moral permissibility of voluntary euthanasia, other internet resources, related entries.

When a person performs an act of euthanasia, she brings about the death of another person because she believes the latter’s present existence is so bad that he would be better off dead, or believes that unless she intervenes and ends his life, his life will very soon become so bad that he would be better off dead. Accordingly, the motive of the person who performs an act of euthanasia is to benefit the one whose death is brought about. (This also holds for many instances of physician-assisted suicide, but use of the latter term is usually restricted to forms of assistance which stop short of the physician ‘bringing about the death’ of the patient, for example, those involving means that have to be activated by the patient.)

It is important to emphasize the motive of benefiting the person who is assisted to die because well-being is a key value in relation to the morality of euthanasia (see Section 3 below). Nonetheless, the defensibility of the contention that someone can be better off dead has been the subject of extensive philosophical deliberation. Those who claim that a person can be better off dead believe this to be true when the life that remains in prospect for that person has no positive value for her (a possibility which is discussed by e.g., Foot, 1977; McMahan 2002; Bradley 2009), whereas some of those who hold that a person’s life is inviolable deny that a person can ever be better off dead (e.g., Keown in Jackson and Keown 2012). A Kant-inspired variant on this latter position has been advanced by Velleman (1999). He considers that a person’s well-being can only matter if she is of intrinsic value and so that it is impermissible to violate a person’s rational nature (the source of her intrinsic value) for the sake of her well-being. Accordingly, he holds that it is impermissible to assist someone to die who judges that she would be better off dead and competently requests assistance with dying. The only exception is when a person’s life is so degraded as to call into question her rational nature, albeit he thinks it unlikely that anyone in that position will remain competent to request assistance with dying. This position appears to be at odds with the well-established right of a competent patient to refuse life-prolonging medical treatment, at least when further treatment is refused because she considers that her life no longer has value for her and further treatment will not restore its value to her. (For further reasons to reject arguments for the inviolability of the life of a person, including Velleman’s, see e.g., McMahan 2002; Young 2007; Sumner 2011, 2017.)

Because our concern will be with voluntary euthanasia – that is, with those instances of euthanasia in which a clearly competent person makes a voluntary and enduring request to be helped to die (or, by extension, when an authorised proxy makes a substituted judgment by choosing in the manner the no-longer-competent person would have chosen had he remained competent) – a second key value is the competence of the person requesting assistance with dying. There will be occasion to mention non-voluntary euthanasia – instances of euthanasia where a person lacks the competence at the time when a decision is to be made to request euthanasia and has not previously competently declared a preference for it via an advance directive (see the entry on advance directives ) – only when consideration is given to the claim that permitting voluntary euthanasia will lead via a slippery slope to permitting non-voluntary euthanasia. Nothing will be said here about involuntary euthanasia , where a competent person’s life is brought to an end despite an explicit expression of opposition to euthanasia, beyond saying that, no matter how honorable the perpetrator’s motive, such a death is, and ought to be, unlawful.

Debate about the morality and legality of voluntary euthanasia has been, for the most part, a phenomenon of the second half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty first century. Certainly, the ancient Greeks and Romans did not believe that life needed to be preserved at any cost and were, in consequence, tolerant of suicide when no relief could be offered to a dying person or, in the case of the Stoics and Epicureans, when a person no longer cared for his life. In the sixteenth century, Thomas More, in describing a utopian community, envisaged such a community as one that would facilitate the death of those whose lives had become burdensome as a result of ‘torturing and lingering pain’. But it has only been in the last hundred years that there have been concerted efforts to make legal provision for voluntary euthanasia. Until quite recently there had been no success in obtaining such legal provision (though assisted suicide, including, but not limited to, physician-assisted suicide, has been legally tolerated in Switzerland for a number of decades). However, the outlook changed dramatically in the 1970s and 80s because of a series of court cases in the Netherlands which culminated in an agreement between the legal and medical authorities to ensure that no physician would be prosecuted for assisting a patient to die as long as certain guidelines were strictly adhered to (see Griffiths, et al., 1998). In brief, the guidelines were established to permit physicians to practise voluntary euthanasia in those instances in which a competent patient had made a voluntary and informed request to be helped to die, the patient’s suffering was unbearable, there was no way of making that suffering bearable that was acceptable to the patient, and the physician’s judgements as to diagnosis and prognosis were confirmed after consultation with another physician.

The first legislative approval for voluntary euthanasia was achieved with the passage in the parliament of Australia’s Northern Territory of a bill enabling physicians to practise voluntary euthanasia. Subsequent to the Act’s proclamation in 1996, it faced a series of legal challenges from opponents of voluntary euthanasia. In 1997 the challenges culminated in the Australian National Parliament overturning the legislation when it prohibited Australian territories from enacting legislation to permit voluntary euthanasia on constitutional grounds. Australia is a federation consisting of six states and two territories. Unlike the territories, the states do have the constitutional right to enact such legislation and in 2017 the state of Victoria did just that. The legislation came into effect in 2019. In 2019, a second state, Western Australia, enacted legislation to enable voluntary medically assisted death. The legislation became effective in 2021. In 2021 three further states, Tasmania, South Australia and Queensland enacted legislation to enable voluntary medically assisted death which came into force in 2022 for the first two, and 2023 for the third. Finally, in 2022 NSW enacted legislation which came into force in 2023 resulting in voluntary medically assisted death being available in each of the states. Attempts are currently being made in both the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory to introduce legislation in favor of voluntary medically assisted death that will avoid being vetoed by the federal parliament.

In November 2000, the Netherlands passed legislation to legalize the practice of voluntary euthanasia. The legislation passed through all the parliamentary stages early in 2001. The Belgian parliament passed similar legislation in 2002 and Luxembourg followed suit in 2009. (For a very helpful comparative study of relevant legislation see Lewis 2007. See also Griffiths, et al. 2008.)

In Oregon in the United States, legislation was introduced in 1997 to permit physician-assisted suicide after a referendum strongly endorsed the proposed legislation. Later in 1997 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide; however, the Court did not preclude individual states from legislating in favor of physician-assisted suicide (so the Oregon legislation was unaffected). Since that time the Oregon legislation has been successfully utilised by a significant number of people and similar legislation has been passed in the state of Washington in 2009, in Vermont in 2013, and more recently still in California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico and the District of Columbia. A series of judicial decisions in the state of Montana in 2008 and 2009 established that the state could not prohibit physician-assisted suicide but legislation has not yet been introduced to codify the legal situation. A number of the remaining states are currently considering physician-assisted suicide bills.

A similar legal position to that in Montana obtained in the nation of Colombia from the late 1990s as a result of a majority ruling by its Constitutional Court in favor of the legality of physician-assisted suicide but legislative provision was finally made only quite recently. In 2021, Spain legalized voluntary euthanasia. In Austria and Germany courts have authorised physician-assisted suicide but no legislative backing for the practice has been introduced, while in Italy legislation for voluntary medically assisted death has been passed in one house of the bicameral parliament. In Portugal legislation for physician-assisted suicide was passed but was subsequently rejected by the Constitutional Court.

In Canada, the province of Quebec introduced legislation permitting medical aid in dying in 2014. The legislation came into effect in 2016 at around the same time that the Canadian National Parliament passed legislation permitting both physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia throughout all of the Canadian federation. (For a brief account of events leading up to the enactment of the various pieces of legislation in Canada see Downie and Schuklenk 2021.)

New Zealand held a referendum in 2019 which resulted in approval for the introduction of legislation for voluntary medically assisted death. The legislation came into effect late in 2021.

In the following countries legislative proposals for voluntary medically assisted death are presently under review: the Czech Republic, France, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Japan, Jersey, South Korea, the Philippines, Slovenia and the United Kingdom.

With that brief sketch of the historical background in place, we will proceed first to consider the conditions that those who have advocated making voluntary medically assisted death legally permissible have typically insisted should be satisfied. Consideration of the proposed conditions will establish a framework for the moral interrogation that will follow in Sections 3 and 4. Section 3 will outline the positive moral case put forward by those who want voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide to be legally permissible. Section 4 will be devoted to scrutinising the most important of the objections that have been levelled against that case by those opposed to the legalization of voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.

Advocates of voluntary euthanasia typically contend that if a person

• is suffering from a terminal illness;
• is unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure for that illness during what remains of her life expectancy;
• is, as a direct result of the illness, either suffering intolerable pain, or only has available a life that is unacceptably burdensome (e.g., because the illness has to be treated in ways that lead to her being unacceptably dependent on others or on technological means of life support);
• has an enduring, voluntary and competent wish to die (or has, prior to losing the competence to do so, expressed a wish to be assisted to die in the event that conditions (a)-(c) are satisfied); and
• is unable without assistance to end her life,

there should be legal and medical provision to facilitate her being allowed to die or assisted to die.

It should be acknowledged that these conditions are quite restrictive, indeed more restrictive than many think appropriate. In particular, the first condition restricts access to voluntary euthanasia to those who are terminally ill . While that expression is not free of all ambiguity, for present purposes it can be agreed that it does not include those who are rendered quadriplegic as a result of accidents, or sufferers from chronic diseases, or individuals who succumb to forms of dementia like Alzheimer’s Disease, to say nothing of those afflicted by ‘existential suffering’. Those who consider that cases like these show the first condition to be too restrictive (e.g., Varelius 2014, Braun, 2023) may, nonetheless, agree that including them as candidates for legalized voluntary euthanasia is likely to make it far harder in many jurisdictions to gain sufficient support for legalization (and so to make it harder to help those terminally ill persons who wish to die). Even so, they believe that voluntary euthanasia should be permitted for those who consider their lives no longer worth living, not just for for the terminally ill. Whether those who judge that their lives are no longer worth living, and so believe their lives are in that sense ‘complete’, should be afforded medical assistance with dying, has recently become a pressing concern in Belgium and the Netherlands. Several court cases have affirmed that such assistance may sometimes be provided for individuals in the former category even though the question remains as to whether it is properly a medical responsibility to render assistance with dying to someone who believes her life is complete despite her not suffering from a terminal medical condition (see, e.g., Young 2017). Relatedly, the issues of whether those suffering from a disability which will not reasonably foreseeably lead to death and those suffering because of a mental illness should be able to access medical assistance with dying have recently been the subject of intense debate in Canada. The debate culminated in disabled individuals, whose conditions are the cause of enduring, intolerable and irremediable suffering, being given access to medical assistance with dying as long as they are capable of making a competent request for that assistance. An intention to make a similar arrangement for those whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness was flagged for introduction in 2024, but has been temporarily shelved until further research has been conducted on the issue. It seems likely that the changes that have been made, or mooted, in these jurisdictions to the eligibility conditions for medical assistance with dying will lead to an expansion of the eligibility conditions for voluntary medically assisted death in other jurisdictions.

The fifth condition further restricts access to voluntary euthanasia by excluding those capable of ending their own lives, and so may be thought unduly restrictive by those who would wish to discourage terminally ill patients from attempting suicide. There will be yet others who consider this condition to be too restrictive because competent patients can always refuse nutrition and hydration (see, e.g., Bernat, et al. 1993; Savulescu 2014). Though this is true, many competent dying persons still wish to have access to legalized medically assisted death, rather than having to rely on refusing nutrition and hydration, so that they may retain control over the timing of their deaths and avoid needlessly prolonging the process of dying.

The second condition is intended simply to reflect the fact that it is normally possible to say when someone’s health status is incurable. So-called ‘miracle’ cures may be proclaimed by sensationalist journalists, but progress toward medical breakthroughs is typically painstaking. If there are miracles wrought by God that will be quite another matter entirely, but it is at least clear that not everyone’s death is thus to be staved off.

The third condition recognises what many who oppose the legalization of voluntary euthanasia do not, namely, that it is not only a desire to be released from pain that leads people to request help with dying. In the Netherlands, for example, pain has been found to be a less significant reason for requesting assistance with dying than other forms of suffering like frustration over loss of independence (see e.g., Marquet, et al. 2003; Onwuteaka-Philipsen, et al. 2012; Emanuel, et al. 2016). Sufferers from some terminal conditions may have their pain relieved but have to endure side effects that, for them, make life unbearable. Others may not have to cope with pain but, instead, with having to rely on forms of life support that simultaneously rob their lives of quality (as with, e.g., motor neurone disease). Yet others struggle with psychological distress and various psychiatric conditions and believe these conditions ought to be counted among the forms of suffering that qualify competent individuals to access medical assistance with dying. There has been greater recognition of, and support for, this position in those jurisdictions that make the role of unbearable suffering central to the determination of the eligibility of competent individuals for medical assistance with dying (see the discussion above of the first condition). Even so, inclusion of these forms of suffering highlights legitimate issues to do with the competence of at least some of those who suffer from them. (For a helpful recent study of the handling of requests for assistance with dying by psychiatric patients in the Netherlands see Kim, et al. 2016.)

A final preliminary point is that the fourth condition requires that the choice to die not only be uncoerced and competent but that it be enduring. The choice is one that will require time for reflection, and, almost certainly, discussion with others, so should not be settled in a moment. Nonetheless, as with other decisions affecting matters of importance, adults are presumed to choose voluntarily and to be competent unless the presence of defeating considerations can be established. (See the entry on decision-making capacity .) The burden of proof of establishing lack of voluntariness, or lack of competence, is on those who refuse to accept an adult person’s choice. There is no need to deny that this burden can sometimes be met (e.g., by pointing to the person’s being in a state of clinical depression). The claim is only that the onus falls on those who assert that an adult’s choice is not competent. (There are different issues to be faced when the competence of at least some older children and adolescents is at issue. In the Netherlands, for example, those aged twelve and older have sometimes been found to be competent to make end-of-life decisions for themselves. However, the topic will not be pursued further here because the focus of the entry is on competent adults.)

Clearly the five conditions set out above are likely to require some refinement if complete agreement is to be reached but there is sufficient agreement for us to proceed without further ado to consideration of the cases for and against legalization of voluntary euthanasia. (However, for a fuller discussion of issues concerning the definition of ‘euthanasia’ see, e.g., Beauchamp and Davidson 1979.)

One central ethical contention in support of voluntary euthanasia is that respect for persons demands respect for their autonomous choices as long as those choices do not result in harm to others. Respect for people’s autonomous choices is directly connected with the requirement for competence because autonomy presupposes competence (cf., Brock 1992). People have an interest in making important decisions about their lives in accordance with their own conception of how they want to live. In exercising autonomy, or self-determination, individuals take responsibility for their lives; since dying is a part of life, choices about the manner of their dying and the timing of their death are, for many people, part of what is involved in taking responsibility for their lives. Many are concerned about what the last phase of their lives will be like, not merely because of fears that their dying might involve them in great suffering, but also because of the desire to retain their dignity, and as much control over their lives as possible, during this phase. A second contention in support of voluntary euthanasia was mentioned at the beginning of this entry, namely the importance of promoting the well-being of persons. When someone is suffering intolerable pain or only has available a life that is unacceptably burdensome (see the third condition above), and he competently requests medical assistance with dying, his well-being may best be promoted by affording him that assistance. When harnessed together, the value to individuals of making autonomous choices, and the value to those individuals who make such choices of promoting their own well-being, provide the moral foundation for requests for voluntary euthanasia. Each consideration is necessary for moral justification of the practice, but taken in isolation neither suffices (see, e.g., Young 2007, 2017; Sumner 2011, 2017).

The technological interventions of modern medicine have had the effect of stretching out the time it takes for many people to die. Sometimes the added life this brings is an occasion for rejoicing; sometimes it drags out the period of significant physical and intellectual decline that a person undergoes with the result that life becomes no longer worth living. Many believe there is no single, objectively correct answer as to when, if at all, a person’s life becomes a burden and hence unwanted. If they are right, that simply points up the importance of individuals being able to decide autonomously for themselves whether their own lives retain sufficient quality and dignity to make life worth living. Others maintain that individuals can be in error about whether their lives continue to be worth living (cf., Foot 1977). The conditions outlined above in Section 2 are intended by those who propose them to serve, among other purposes, to safeguard against such error. But it is worth adding that in the event that a person who considers that she satisfies those conditions is judged by her medical attendants to be in error about whether it would be worth her continuing to live, the likely outcome is that those attendants will refuse to provide medical assistance with dying. (Evidence that will be mentioned below shows that this happens more frequently than might be predicted in jurisdictions in which medically assisted dying has been legalized. (There are discussions of the principles at stake in such matters in Young 2007; Wicclair 2011; Sumner 2020.) Unless a patient is able to be transferred to the care of other medical professionals who accept her assessment, she will have to rely on her own resources (e.g., by refusing nutrition and hydration). Even so, other things being equal, as long as a critically ill person is competent, her own judgement of whether continued life is a benefit to her ought to carry the greatest weight in any end-of-life decision making regardless of whether she is in a severely compromised and debilitated state. The idea that a competent individual’s autonomous judgment of the value to her of continued life should trump an assessment by others of her well-being should not be thought surprising because precisely the same happens when a competent patient refuses life-prolonging treatment.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it is agreed that we should respect a person’s competent request for medical assistance with dying (e.g., so as to enable her to achieve her autonomously chosen goal of an easeful death). It might be thought that in such an eventuality different moral concerns will be introduced from those that arise in connection with competent refusals. After all, while competent patients are entitled to refuse any form of medical treatment, they are not entitled to insist on the administration of forms of medical treatment that have no prospect of conferring a medical benefit or are not being provided because of a scarcity of medical resources or their affordability. While each of these points is sound, it remains the case that medical personnel have a duty to relieve suffering when that is within their capacity. Accordingly, doctors who regard medical assistance with dying as an element of appropriate medical care will consider it morally permissible to agree to a request for assistance with dying by a competent dying patient who wishes to avoid unbearable suffering. The reason for claiming only that this is morally permissible rather than morally obligatory will be explained in a subsequent paragraph. (For further reflections on the issue of responses to requests for medical assistance see, for instance, Dworkin 1998; Sumner 2011, 2017, 2020; Young 2007, 2017.)

Notwithstanding this response, as was seen earlier, at least some proponents of voluntary medically assisted dying wish to question why medical assistance with dying should be restricted to those covered by, in particular, the first three conditions set out above in Section 2. If people’s competent requests for medically assisted death should be respected why impose any restrictions at all on who may have access to medically assisted death? Why, for example, should those suffering from depression, or forms of dementia, not be eligible for medically assisted dying? Most proponents of voluntary medically assisted dying hold that there are at least two reasons for restricting access to it to those who satisfy the conditions set out earlier (or, a modified set that takes account of the concerns canvassed in the discussion of those proposed conditions). First, they contend that there are political grounds for doing so, namely, that because legalizing medically assisted dying for competent individuals is politically contested, the best hope for its legalization lies in focusing on those forms of suffering most likely to effect law reform. That is why some proponents deny the eligibility even of sufferers from conditions like ‘locked-in’ syndrome, motor neurone disease, and multiple sclerosis for voluntary medically assisted dying since, strictly, they are not terminally ill, and reliance has to be placed in consequence on their claim to be suffering unbearably. Second, and relatedly, most proponents of the legalization of medical assistance with dying have been cautious about supporting medically assisted death for those suffering from, for example, depression and dementia, because not only are they not terminally ill, but their competence to request assistance with dying is apt to be called into question, particularly in instances where they have given no prior indication of their preference for such assistance. Restricting access to medical assistance with dying to those whose suffering is less likely to be disputed avoids becoming embroiled in controversy. As was noted earlier, some critics of the restrictive approach (e.g., Varelius 2014) take a harder line and claim that it should not even be necessary for a person to be suffering from a medical condition to be eligible for medical assistance with dying; it should be enough to be ‘tired of life’. Only in a few jurisdictions, viz., Switzerland, the Netherlands and Belgium, has this issue been seriously broached. Regardless of what may happen in those jurisdictions, those seeking the legal provision of medical assistance with dying in other jurisdictions seem likely to maintain that if such assistance is to be seen as a legitimate form of medical care it has to be provided in response to a medical condition (rather than because someone is ‘tired of life’), and, indeed, restricted to those who satisfy the conditions outlined earlier in Section 2 (or some similar set of conditions). In short, these latter hold that making an autonomous request for assistance with dying is necessary, but should not be sufficient, for triggering such assistance.

There is one final matter of relevance to the moral case for voluntary medically assisted death on which comment must be made. The comment concerns a point foreshadowed in a previous paragraph, but it is also linked with the remark just made about the insufficiency of an autonomous request for assistance with dying to trigger that assistance. It is important to make the point that respect has to be shown not only for the dying person’s autonomy but also for the professional autonomy of any medical personnel asked to lend assistance with dying. The value (or, as some would prefer, the right) of self-determination does not entitle a patient to try to compel medical professionals to act contrary to their own moral or professional values. Hence, if voluntary euthanasia is to be legally permitted, it must be against a backdrop of respect for professional autonomy. Similarly, if a doctor’s view of her moral or professional responsibilities is at odds with her patient’s competent request for euthanasia, she should make provision, where it is feasible to do so, for the transfer of the patient to the care of a doctor who faces no such conflict. Given that, to date, those who contend that no scope should be permitted for conscientious objection within medical practice have garnered very little support for that view, making use of referrals and transfers remains the most effective means of resolving such disagreements.

Opponents of voluntary euthanasia have endeavored in a variety of ways to counter the very straightforward moral case that has been laid out above for its legalization (see, for example, Keown 2002; Foley, et al. 2002; Biggar 2004; Gorsuch 2006). Some of the counter-arguments are concerned only with whether the moral case warrants making the practice of voluntary euthanasia legal, whereas others are concerned with trying to undermine the moral case itself. In what follows, consideration will be given to the five most important counter-arguments. (For more comprehensive discussions of the morality and legality of medically assisted death see Biggar 2004; Gorsuch 2006; Young 2007; Sumner 2011, 2017; Keown 2018).

4.1 Objection 1

It is sometimes said (e.g., Emanuel 1999; Keown in Jackson and Keown 2012) that it is not necessary nowadays for people to die while suffering from intolerable or overwhelming pain because the provision of effective palliative care has improved steadily, and hospice care is more widely available. Some have urged, in consequence, that voluntary euthanasia is unnecessary.

There are several flaws in this contention. First, while both good palliative care and hospice care make important contributions to the care of the dying, neither is a panacea. To get the best palliative care for an individual involves trial and error, with some consequent suffering in the process; moreover, even the best care fails to relieve all pain and suffering. Perhaps even more importantly, high quality palliative care commonly exacts a price in the form of side-effects such as nausea, incontinence, loss of awareness because of semi-permanent drowsiness, and so on. A rosy picture is often painted as to how palliative care can transform the plight of the dying. Such a picture is misleading according to those who have closely observed the effect of extended courses of treatment with drugs like morphine. For these reasons many skilled palliative care specialists acknowledge that palliative care does not enable an easeful death for every patient. Second, even though the sort of care provided through hospices is to be applauded, it is care that is available to only a small proportion of the terminally ill and then usually only in the very last stages of the illness (typically a matter of a few weeks). Notwithstanding that only relatively few of the dying have access to hospice care it is worth drawing attention to the fact that in, Oregon, to cite one example, a high proportion of those who have sought physician-assisted suicide were in hospice care. Third, and of greatest significance for present purposes, not everyone wishes to avail themselves of palliative or hospice care. For those who prefer to die on their own terms and in their own time, neither option may be attractive. As previously mentioned, a major source of distress for many dying patients is the frustration that comes with being unable to satisfy their autonomous wishes. Fourth, as also indicated earlier, the suffering that occasions a desire to end life is not always traceable to pain caused by illness. For some, what is intolerable is their forced dependence on others or on life-supporting machinery; for these patients, the availability of effective pain control is not the primary concern. (In relation to the preceding matters see Rietjens, et al. 2009 and Onwuteaka-Philipsen et al. 2012 for findings for the Netherlands; and, for Oregon, Ganzini, et al. 2009.)

4.2 Objection 2

A second, related objection to the moral and legal permissibility of voluntary euthanasia turns on the claim that we can never have sufficient evidence to be justified in believing that a dying person’s request to be helped to die is competent, enduring and genuinely voluntary.

It is certainly true that a request to die may not reflect an enduring desire to die (just as some attempts to commit suicide may reflect only temporary despair). That is why advocates of the legalization of voluntary euthanasia have argued that a cooling off period should normally be required before euthanasia is permitted to ensure that the request is enduring. That having been said, to claim that we can never be justified in believing that someone’s request to die reflects a settled preference for death is to go too far. If a competent person discusses the issue with others on different occasions over time, and remains steady in her resolve, or privately reflects on the issue for an extended period and does not waver in her conviction, her wish to die surely must be counted as enduring.

But, it might be asked, what if a person is racked with pain, or mentally confused because of the measures taken to relieve her pain, and is, in consequence, unable to think clearly and rationally about the alternatives? It has to be agreed that a person in those circumstances who wants to die should not be assumed to have a truly voluntary and enduring desire to die. However, there are at least two important points to make about those in such circumstances. First, they do not account for all of the terminally ill, so even if it is acknowledged that such people are incapable of agreeing to voluntary euthanasia that does not show that no one can ever voluntarily request help to die. Second, it is possible in at least some jurisdictions for a person to indicate, in advance of losing the capacity to give competent consent, how she would wish to be treated should she become terminally ill and suffer either intolerable pain or an unacceptable loss of control over her life (cf., for instance, Dworkin 1993). ‘Living wills’ or ‘advance directives’ are legal instruments for giving voice to people’s wishes while they are capable of giving competent, enduring and voluntary consent, including to their wanting help to die. As long as they are easily revocable in the event of a change of mind (just as civil wills are), they should be respected as evidence of a well thought-out conviction. (For more detailed consideration of these instruments see the entry on advance directives .)

Perhaps, though, what is really at issue in this objection is whether anyone can ever form a competent, enduring and voluntary judgement about being better off dead, rather than continuing to suffer from an illness, prior to suffering such an illness (cf., Keown in Jackson and Keown 2012). If this is what underlies the objection it is surely too paternalistic to be acceptable. Why is it not possible for a person to have sufficient inductive evidence (e.g., based on the experience of the deaths of friends or family) to know her own mind, and act accordingly, without having had direct experience of such suffering?

4.3 Objection 3

According to the traditional interpretation of the ‘doctrine of double effect’ it is permissible to act in a way which it is foreseen will have a bad effect, provided only that

• the bad effect occurs as a side-effect (i.e., indirectly) to the achievement of the act that is directly aimed at;
• the act directly aimed at is itself morally good or, at least, morally neutral;
• the good effect is not achieved by way of the bad, that is, the bad must not be a means to the good; and
• the bad effect must not be so serious as to outweigh the good effect.

Hence, it is permissible, according to the doctrine of double effect, to, for example, alleviate pain (a good effect) by administering a drug, knowing that doing so will shorten life, but impermissible to administer the same drug with the direct intention of terminating a patient’s life (a bad effect). This latter claim is said to apply regardless of whether the drug is given at the person’s request.

This is not the appropriate forum for a full consideration of the doctrine, for which see the entry on the doctrine of double effect . However, there is one very important criticism to be made of the application of the doctrine that has direct relevance to the issue of voluntary euthanasia.

On the most plausible reading, the doctrine of double effect can be relevant to the permissibility of voluntary euthanasia only when a person’s death is bad for her or, to put it another way, a harm to her. Sometimes the notion of ‘harm’ is understood simply as damage to a person’s interests whether consented to or not. At other times, it is understood, more strictly, as damage that has been wrongfully inflicted. On either understanding of harm, there can be instances in which death for a person does not constitute a harm for her because it will either render her better off, or, as some would insist, no worse off, when compared with remaining alive. Accordingly, in those instances, the doctrine of double effect can have no relevance to the debate about the permissibility of voluntary euthanasia. (For extended discussions of the doctrine of double effect and its bearing on the moral permissibility of voluntary euthanasia see, e.g., McIntyre 2001; Woodward 2001; Cavanaugh 2006; Young 2007; Sumner 2011, 2017.)

4.4 Objection 4

As was noted earlier in Section 3, there is a widespread belief that so-called passive (voluntary) euthanasia, wherein life-sustaining or life-prolonging measures are withdrawn or withheld in response to a competent patient’s request, is morally permissible. The reason why passive (voluntary) euthanasia is said to be morally permissible is that the patient is simply allowed to die because steps are not taken to preserve or prolong life. This happens, for example, when a dying patient requests the withdrawal or the withholding of measures whose administration would be medically futile, or unacceptably burdensome. By contrast, active (voluntary) euthanasia is said to be morally impermissible because it is claimed to require an unjustifiable intentional act of killing to satisfy the patient’s request (cf., for example, Finnis, 1995; Keown in Jackson and Keown 2012; Keown 2018).

Despite its popularity and widespread use, the distinction between passive and active euthanasia is neither particularly clear nor morally helpful. (For a fuller discussion, see McMahan 2002.) Whether behavior is described in terms of acts or omissions (a distinction which underpins the alleged difference between active and passive voluntary euthanasia and that between killing a person and letting her die), is often a matter of pragmatics rather than anything of deeper moral importance. Consider, for instance, the practice (once common in hospitals) of deliberately proceeding slowly to a ward in response to a request to provide assistance for a patient who has been assigned a ‘not for resuscitation’ code. Or, consider ‘pulling the plug’ on a respirator keeping an otherwise dying patient alive, as against not replacing the oxygen supply when it runs out. Are these acts or omissions? If the answers turn on merely pragmatic considerations the supposed distinction between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia will be hard to sustain.

Even supposing that the distinction between acts and omissions, and the associated distinction between killing and letting die, can be satisfactorily clarified (on which see the entry doing v. allowing harm ), there remains the issue of whether these distinctions have moral significance in every circumstance. Consider a case of a patient suffering from motor neurone disease who is completely respirator dependent, finds her condition intolerable, and competently and persistently requests to be removed from the respirator so that she may die. Even the Catholic Church in recent times has been prepared to agree that it is permissible, in a case like this, to turn off the respirator. No doubt this has been because the Catholic Church considers such a patient is only being allowed to die. Even were it to be agreed, for the sake of argument, that such a death should be regarded as an instance of letting die, this concession would not show that it would have been morally worse had the patient been killed at her request (active voluntary euthanasia) rather than being allowed to die (passive voluntary euthanasia). Indeed, supporters of voluntary medically assisted death maintain that since death is beneficial in such an instance (or, at the very least, leaves the dying person no worse off), actively bringing about the death is morally to be preferred to just allowing it to happen because the desired benefit is achieved sooner and thus with less suffering.

Opponents of voluntary euthanasia claim, however, that the difference between active and passive euthanasia is to be found in the agent’s intention: if someone’s life is intentionally terminated she has been killed, whereas if she is just no longer being aggressively treated, her death should be attributed to the underlying disease. Many physicians would say that their intention in withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment in such circumstances is simply to respect the patient’s wishes. This is plausible in those instances where the patient competently requests that aggressive treatment no longer be given (or, the patient’s proxy makes such a request). But it will often be implausible. In many cases the most plausible interpretation of a physician’s intention in withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining measures is that it is to end the patient’s life. Consider the palliative care practice of ‘terminally sedating’ a patient after a decision has been made to cease aggressive treatment. Suppose (as sometimes happens) that this is then followed by withholding artificially supplied nutrition. In these latter instances the best explanation of the physician’s behavior is that the physician intends thereby to end the life of the patient. What could be the point of the action, the goal aimed at, the intended outcome, if not to end the patient’s life? (Cf. Winkler 1995.) No sense can be made of the action as being intended to palliate the patient’s diseased condition, or to keep the patient comfortable. Nor is it appropriate to claim that what kills the patient is the underlying disease. What kills the patient is the act of depriving her of nutrition (i.e., of starving her to death). The point can be generalized to cover many more instances involving either the withdrawal or the withholding of life-sustaining medical treatment. In short, there is no good reason to think that whereas so-called passive voluntary euthanasia is morally acceptable active voluntary euthanasia never can be.

But we can go further. Giving titrated doses of morphine that reach levels beyond those needed to control pain, or removing a respirator from a sufferer from motor neurone disease, seem to many of us to amount to intentionally bringing about the death of the person being cared for. To be sure, as was acknowledged above, there are circumstances in which doctors can truthfully say that the actions they perform, or omissions they make, will bring about the deaths of their patients even though it was not their intention that those patients would die. So, for instance, if a patient refuses life-prolonging medical treatment because she considers it futile, it can be reasonable to say that her doctor’s intention in complying with the request was simply to respect her wishes. Nevertheless, as we have seen, there are other circumstances in which it is highly stilted to claim, as some doctors continue to do, that they had no intention of bringing about death.

These considerations should settle matters but do not do so for those who maintain that killing, in medical contexts, is always morally unjustified – a premise that underwrites much of the debate surrounding this fourth objection. But this underlying assumption is open to challenge and has been challenged by, for instance, Rachels 1986 and McMahan 2002. One of the reasons the challengers have given is that there are cases in which killing a competent dying person when she requests assistance with dying, is morally preferable to allowing her to die, namely, when taking the latter option would serve only to prolong her suffering against her wishes. Further, despite the longstanding legal doctrine that no one can justifiably consent to be killed (on which more later), it surely is relevant to the justification of an act of killing that the person killed has autonomously decided that she would be better off dead and so asks to be helped to die.

4.5 Objection 5

It is sometimes said that if society allows voluntary euthanasia to be legalized, we will then have set foot on a slippery slope that will lead us eventually to support other forms of euthanasia, including, in particular, non-voluntary euthanasia. Whereas it was once the common refrain that that was precisely what happened in Hitler’s Germany, in recent decades the tendency has been to claim that experience with legalized euthanasia in the Netherlands and Belgium, in particular, has confirmed the reality of the slippery slope.

Slippery slope arguments come in various versions. One (but not the only) way of classifying them has been to refer to logical, psychological and arbitrary line versions. The common feature of the different forms is the contention that once the first step is taken on a slippery slope the subsequent steps follow inexorably, whether for logical reasons, psychological reasons, or to avoid arbitrariness in ‘drawing a line’ between a person’s actions. (For further discussion see, e.g., Rachels 1986; Brock 1992; Walton 1992.)

We need first to consider whether, at the theoretical level, any of these forms of argument is powerful enough to refute the case for the legalization of voluntary euthanasia. We will then be in a position to comment on the alleged empirical support from the experiences of Hitler’s Germany and, more recently, of legalized euthanasia in the Netherlands and elsewhere, for the existence of a slippery slope that supposedly comes into being with the legalization of voluntary euthanasia.

To begin with, there is nothing logically inconsistent in supporting voluntary euthanasia while maintaining the moral inappropriateness of non-voluntary euthanasia. (However, for an attempt to press the charge that there is such an inconsistency see, e.g., Keown 2022.) Undoubtedly, some advocates of voluntary euthanasia wish also to lend their support to some acts of non-voluntary euthanasia, for example, for those in persistent vegetative states who have never indicated their wishes about being helped to die, or for certain severely disabled infants for whom the outlook is hopeless. (See, e.g., Kuhse and Singer 1985; Singer 1994; Stingl 2010; Sumner 2017.) Others believe that the consent of the patient is strictly required if euthanasia is appropriately to be legalized. The difference is not a matter of logical acumen; it is to be explained by reference to the importance placed on key values by the respective supporters. Thus, for example, those who insist on the necessity for a competent request by a patient for medical assistance with dying typically believe that such a request is the paramount consideration in end-of-life decision making (even when it is harnessed to the value of individual well-being), whereas those who consider a person’s best interests to be the paramount consideration are more likely to believe in the justifiability of instances of non-voluntary euthanasia like those mentioned above.

Next, it is hard to see why moving from voluntary to non-voluntary euthanasia is supposed to be psychologically inevitable. Why should those who support the legalization of voluntary euthanasia, because they value the autonomy of the individual, find it psychologically easier, in consequence, to endorse the killing of those who are not able competently to request assistance with dying? What reason is there to believe that they will, as a result of their support for voluntary euthanasia, be psychologically driven to endorse a practice of non-voluntary euthanasia?

Finally, since there is nothing arbitrary about distinguishing voluntary euthanasia from non-voluntary euthanasia (because the line between them is based on clear principles), there can be no substance to the charge that only by arbitrarily drawing a line between them could non-voluntary euthanasia be avoided were voluntary euthanasia to be legalized.

What, though, of Hitler’s Germany and the recent experience of legalized voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands and elsewhere? The former is easily dismissed as an indication of an inevitable descent from voluntary euthanasia to non-voluntary. There never was a policy in favor of, or a legal practice of, voluntary euthanasia in Germany in the 1920s to the 1940s (see, for example, Burleigh 1994). There was, prior to Hitler coming to power, a clear practice of killing some disabled persons. But it was never suggested that their being killed was justified by reference to their best interests; rather, it was said that society would be benefited. Hitler’s later revival of the practice and its widening to take in other groups such as Jews and gypsies was part of a program of eugenics , not euthanasia.

Since the publication of the Remmelink Report in 1991 into the medical practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands, it has frequently been said that the Dutch experience shows that legally protecting voluntary euthanasia is impossible without also affording shelter to the non-voluntary euthanasia that will follow in its train (see, e.g., Keown 2018). In the period since that report there have been regular national studies of the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands (see, e.g., Rietjens, et al. 2009; Onwuteaka-Philipsen, et al. 2012; van der Heide, et al. 2017). The findings from these national studies have consistently shown that there is no evidence for the existence of such a slippery slope. Among the specific findings the following are worth mentioning: of those terminally ill persons who have been assisted to die about sixty per cent have clearly been cases of voluntary euthanasia as it has been characterised in this entry; of the remainder, the vast majority of cases were of patients who at the time of their medically assisted deaths were no longer competent. It might be thought that these deaths ought to be regarded as instances of non-voluntary euthanasia. But, in fact, it would be inappropriate to regard them as such. Here is why. For the overwhelming majority of these cases, the decisions to end life were taken only after consultation between the attending doctor(s) and close family members, and so can legitimately be thought of as involving substituted judgements. Moreover, according to the researchers, the overwhelming majority of these cases fit within either of two common practices that occur in countries where voluntary euthanasia has not been legalized, namely, that of terminal sedation of dying patients, and that of giving large doses of opioids to relieve pain while foreseeing that this will also end life. In a very few cases, there was no consultation with relatives, though in those cases there were consultations with other medical personnel. The researchers contend that these instances are best explained by the fact that families in the Netherlands strictly have no final legal authority to act as surrogate decision-makers for incompetent persons. For these reasons the researchers maintain that non-voluntary euthanasia is not widely practised in the Netherlands.

That there have only been a handful of prosecutions of Dutch doctors for failing to follow agreed procedures (Griffiths, et al. 1998; Asscher and van de Vathorst 2020), that none of the doctors prosecuted has had a significant penalty imposed, that a significant proportion of requests for medical assistance with dying are rejected as unjustifiable, and that the Dutch public have regularly reaffirmed their support for the agreed procedures suggests that, contrary to the claims of some critics, the legalization of voluntary euthanasia has not increased the incidence of non-voluntary euthanasia. A similar picture to the one in the Netherlands has emerged from studies of the operation of the law concerning physician-assisted suicide in Oregon. Indeed, in a recent wide-ranging study of attitudes and practices of voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide covering two continents, a prominent critic of these practices has concluded (in agreement with his co-authors) that little evidence exists of abuse, particularly of the vulnerable (see Emanuel, et al., 2016). Unfortunately, insufficient time has elapsed for appropriate studies to be conducted in the other jurisdictions that have legalized either voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (but for some relevant evidence see e.g., White, et al. 2022). Finally, some commentators have pointed out that there may, in reality, be more danger of the line between voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia being blurred if euthanasia is practised in the absence of legal recognition, since there will, in those circumstances, be neither transparency nor monitoring (which cannot be said of the Netherlands, Belgium, Oregon and so on).

None of this is to suggest that it is not necessary to ensure the presence of safeguards against potential abuse of legally protected voluntary euthanasia. This is particularly important for the protection of those who have become incompetent by the time decisions need to be taken about whether to assist them to die. Furthermore, it is, of course, possible that the reform of any law may have unintended effects. However, if the arguments outlined above are sound (and the experience in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, along with the more limited experience in several states in the United States and in Canada, is, for the present, not only the best evidence we have that they are sound, but the only relevant evidence), that does not seem very likely.

It is now well-established in many jurisdictions that competent patients are entitled to make their own decisions about life-sustaining medical treatment. That is why they can refuse such treatment even when doing so is tantamount to deciding to end their life. It is plausible to think that the fundamental basis of the right to decide about life-sustaining treatment – respect for a person’s autonomy and her assessment of what will best serve her well-being – has direct relevance to the legalization of voluntary euthanasia (see, e.g., Dworkin 1998; Young 2007, 2017; Sumner 2011, 2017). In consequence, extending the right of self-determination to cover cases of voluntary euthanasia does not require a dramatic shift in legal policy. Nor do any novel legal values or principles need to be invoked. Indeed, the fact that suicide and attempted suicide are no longer criminal offences in many jurisdictions indicates that the central importance of individual self-determination in a closely analogous context has been accepted. The fact that voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have not been more widely decriminalized is perhaps best explained along a similar line to the one that has frequently been offered for excluding the consent of the victim as a justification for an act of killing, namely the difficulties thought to exist in establishing the genuineness of the consent. But, the establishment of suitable procedures for giving consent to voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is surely no harder than establishing procedures for competently refusing burdensome or otherwise unwanted medical treatment. The latter has already been accomplished in many jurisdictions, so the former should be achievable as well.

Suppose that the moral case for legalizing voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide does come to be judged more widely as stronger than the case against legalization, and they are made legally permissible in more jurisdictions than at present. Should doctors take part in the practice? Should only doctors perform voluntary euthanasia? These questions ought to be answered in light of the best understanding of what it is to provide medical care. The proper administration of medical care should promote the welfare of patients while respecting their individual self-determination. It is these twin values that should guide medical care, not the preservation of life at all costs, or the preservation of life without regard to whether patients want their lives prolonged should they judge that life is no longer of benefit or value to them. Many doctors in those jurisdictions where medically assisted death has been legalized and, to judge from available survey evidence, in other liberal democracies as well, see the practice of voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide as not only compatible with their professional commitments but also with their conception of the best medical care for the dying. That being so, doctors of the same conviction in jurisdictions in which voluntary medically assisted death is currently illegal should no longer be prohibited by law from lending their professional assistance to competent terminally ill persons who request assistance with dying because of irremediable suffering or because their lives no longer have value for them.

• Asscher, E. and S. van de Vathorst, 2020, “First Prosecution of a Dutch Doctor Since the Euthanasia Act of 2002: What Does It Mean?”, Journal of Medical Ethics , 46: 71–75.
• Beauchamp, T. and A. Davidson, 1979, “The Definition of Euthanasia”, The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy , 4: 294–312.
• Bernat, J., B. Gert, and R. Mognielnicki, 1993, “Patient Refusal of Hydration and Nutrition: An Alternative to Physician Assisted Suicide or Voluntary Euthanasia”, Archives of Internal Medicine , 153: 2723–2728.
• Biggar, N., 2004, Aiming to Kill: The Ethics of Suicide and Euthanasia , London: Darton, Longman and Todd.
• Bradley, B., 2009, Well-Being and Death , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Braun, E., 2023, “An autonomy-based approach to assisted suicide: a way to avoid the expressivist objection against assisted dying laws”, Journal of Medical Ethics , 49: 497–501.
• Brock, D., 1993, “Voluntary Active Euthanasia”, Hastings Center Report , 22(2): 10–22.
• Burleigh, M., 1994, Death and Deliverance: Euthanasia in Germany c. 1900–1945 , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Cavanaugh, T., 2006, Double-Effect Reasoning: Doing Good and Avoiding Evil , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Commission on the Study of Medical Practice Concerning Euthanasia: Medical Decisions Concerning the End of Life , The Hague: SdU, 1991. (This is known as ‘The Remmelink Report’.)
• Downie, J. and U. Schuklenk, 2021, “Social determinants of health and slippery slopes in assisted dying debates: lessons from Canada”, Journal of Medical Ethics , 47: 662–669.
• Dworkin, R., 1993, Life’s Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom , New York: Random House.
• Dworkin, G., 1998, “Public Policy and Physician-Assisted Suicide”, in Dworkin, Frey, & Bok 1998, pp. 64–80.
• Dworkin, G., R. Frey, and S. Bok, 1998, Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: For and Against , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Emanuel, E., 1999, “What Is the Great Benefit of Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide?”, Ethics , 109: 629–642.
• Emanuel, E., B. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, J. Urwin and J. Cohen, 2016, “Attitudes and Practices of Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide in the United States, Canada and Europe”, Journal of the American Medical Association , 316: 79–90.
• Finnis, J., 1995, “A Philosophical Case Against Euthanasia” in J. Keown (ed.), Euthanasia Examined: Ethical, Clinical and Legal Perspectives , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Foley, K. and H. Hendin (eds.), 2002, The Case Against Assisted Suicide: For the Right to End-of-Life Care , Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Foot, P., 1977, “Euthanasia”, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 6: 85–112.
• Ganzini, L., E. Goy and S. Dobscha, 2009, “Oregonians’ Reasons for Requesting Physician Aid in Dying”, Archives of Internal Medicine , 169: 489–492.
• Gorsuch, N., 2006, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia , Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Griffiths, J., A. Bood, and H. Weyers, 1998, Euthanasia and Law in the Netherlands , Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
• Griffiths, J., H. Weyers and M. Adams, 2008, Euthanasia and Law in Europe , Oxford: Hart Publishing.
• Jackson, E. and J. Keown, 2012, Debating Euthanasia , Oxford: Hart Publishing.
• Keown, J., 2018, Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy: an argument against legalization , 2nd edition, New York: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2022, “The Logical Link Between Voluntary and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia”, Cambridge Law Journal , 81: 84–108.
• Kim, S., R. De Vries and J. Peteet, 2016, “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide of Patients with Psychiatric Disorders in the Netherlands 2011 to 2014”, Journal of the American Medical Association Psychiatry , 73: 362–368.
• Kuhse, H. and P. Singer, 1985, Should the Baby Live?: The Problem of Handicapped Infants , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lewis, P., 2007, Assisted Dying and Legal Change , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Marquet, R., A. Bartelds, G. Visser, P. Spreeuwenberg and L. Peters, 2003, “Twenty Five Years of Requests for Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide in Dutch General Practice: Trend Analysis”, British Medical Journal , 327: 201–202.
• McIntyre, A., 2001, “Doing Away With Double Effect”, Ethics , 111: 219–255.
• McMahan, J., 2002, The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B., A. Brinkman-Stoppelenburg, C. Penning, G. Jong-Krul, J. van Delden and A. van der Heide, 2012, “Trends in end-of-life practices before and after the enactment of the euthanasia law in the Netherlands from 1990–2010: A repeated cross-sectional survey”, The Lancet , 380: 908–915.
• Rachels, J., 1986, The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Rietjens, J., P. van der Maas, B. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, J. van Delden and A. van der Heide, 2009, “Two Decades of Research on Euthanasia from the Netherlands: What Have We Learnt and What Questions Remain?”, Journal of Bioethical Inquiry , 6: 271–283.
• Savulescu, J., 2014, “A Simple Solution to the Puzzles of End of Life? Voluntary Palliated Starvation”, Journal of Medical Ethics , 40: 110–113.
• Singer, P. 1994, Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics , Melbourne: Text Publishing.
• Stingl, M., (ed.), 2010, The Price of Compassion: Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia , Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press.
• Sumner, L., 2011, Assisted Death: A Study in Ethics and Law , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2017, Physician-Assisted Death: What Everyone Needs to Know , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2020, “Conscientious Refusal to Provide Medically Assisted Dying”, University of Toronto Law Journal , 71: 1–31.
• van der Heide, A., J.van Delden and B. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, 2017, “End-of-Life Decisions in the Netherlands over 25 Years”, New England Journal of Medicine , 377: 492–494.
• Varelius, J., 2014, “Medical Expertise, Existential Suffering and Ending Life”, Journal of Medical Ethics , 40: 104–107.
• Velleman, J., 1999, “A Right of Self-Termination?”, Ethics , 109: 606–628.
• White, B., L. Willmott, K. Del Villar, J. Hewitt, E. Close, L. Greaves, J. Cameron, R. Meehan and J. Downie, 2022, “Who is Eligible for Voluntary Assisted Death?: Nine Medical Conditions Assessed Against Five Legal Frameworks”, University of New South Wales Law Journal , 45: 401–444.
• Wicclair, M., 2011, Conscientious Objection in Health Care: An Ethical Analysis , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Winkler, E., 1995, “Reflections on the State of Current Debate Over Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia”, Bioethics , 9: 313–326.
• Woodward, P., (ed.), 2001, The Doctrine of Double Effect: Philosophers Debate a Controversial Moral Principle , Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Young, R., 2007, Medically Assisted Death , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2017, “An Argument in Favor of the Morality of Voluntary Medically Assisted Death”, in M. Cholbi (ed.), Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Global Views on Choosing to End Life , Santa Barbara: Praeger.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Medically Assisted Dying , an annotated bibliography authored by Robert Young (La Trobe University)
• Eight Reasons Not to Legalize Physician Assisted Suicide , by David Albert Jones, online resource at the Anscombe Bioethics Centre website.

advance directives | decision-making capacity | doing vs. allowing harm | double effect, doctrine of

Copyright © 2024 by Robert Young < robert . young @ iinet . net . au >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• News & Views
• Euthanasia and...

Euthanasia and assisted dying: the illusion of autonomy—an essay by Ole Hartling

Read our coverage of the assisted dying debate.

• Related content
• Peer review
• Ole Hartling , former chairman
• Danish Council of Ethics, Denmark
• hartling{at}dadlnet.dk

As a medical doctor I have, with some worry, followed the assisted dying debate that regularly hits headlines in many parts of the world. The main arguments for legalisation are respecting self-determination and alleviating suffering. Since those arguments appear self-evident, my book Euthanasia and the Ethics of a Doctor’s Decisions—An Argument Against Assisted Dying 1 aimed to contribute to the international debate on this matter.

I found it worthwhile to look into the arguments for legalisation more closely, with the hope of sowing a little doubt in the minds of those who exhibit absolute certainty in the matter. This essay focuses on one point: the concept of “autonomy.”

(While there are several definitions of voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary euthanasia as well as assisted dying, assisted suicide, and physician assisted suicide, for the purposes of brevity in this essay, I use “assisted dying” throughout.)

Currently, in richer countries, arguments for legalising assisted dying frequently refer to the right to self-determination—or autonomy and free will. Our ability to self-determine seems to be unlimited and our right to it inviolable. The public’s response to opinion poll questions on voluntary euthanasia show that people can scarcely imagine not being able to make up their own minds, nor can they imagine not having the choice. Moreover, a healthy person answering a poll may have difficulty imagining being in a predicament where they simply would not wish to be given the choice.

I question whether self-determination is genuinely possible when choosing your own death. In my book, I explain that the choice will always be made in the context of a non-autonomous assessment of your quality of life—that is, an assessment outside your control. 1

All essential decisions that we make are made in relation to other people. Our decisions are affected by other people, and …

Log in using your username and password

BMA Member Log In

If you have a subscription to The BMJ, log in:

• Need to activate
• Log in via institution
• Log in via OpenAthens

Log in through your institution

Subscribe from £184 *.

Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.

* For online subscription

Access this article for 1 day for: £33 / $40 / €36 ( excludes VAT )

You can download a PDF version for your personal record.

Buy this article

• Meeting report
• Open access
• Published: 15 January 2014

Should assisted dying be legalised?

• Thomas D G Frost 1 ,
• Devan Sinha 2 &
• Barnabas J Gilbert 3  

Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine volume  9 , Article number:  3 ( 2014 ) Cite this article

69k Accesses

8 Citations

7 Altmetric

Metrics details

When an individual facing intractable pain is given an estimate of a few months to live, does hastening death become a viable and legitimate alternative for willing patients? Has the time come for physicians to do away with the traditional notion of healthcare as maintaining or improving physical and mental health, and instead accept their own limitations by facilitating death when requested? The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge held the 2013 Varsity Medical Debate on the motion “This House Would Legalise Assisted Dying”. This article summarises the key arguments developed over the course of the debate. We will explore how assisted dying can affect both the patient and doctor; the nature of consent and limits of autonomy; the effects on society; the viability of a proposed model; and, perhaps most importantly, the potential need for the practice within our current medico-legal framework.

Introduction

Over the past two centuries, the United Kingdom has experienced rapid population growth associated with a substantial decline in mortality from acute infectious diseases and poor nutrition [ 1 ]. As the average life expectancy has increased, so too have the rates of debilitating chronic illness – particularly coronary artery disease and cancers [ 2 ]. These diseases require years of treatment instead of the mere days to weeks that medicine once operated within [ 2 ]. Although healthcare systems have sought to adapt to such changes, aiming to prevent and treat such disease wherever possible, debate has arisen regarding those patients in the latter stages of chronic, incurable, terminal conditions [ 3 , 4 ]. Moreover, there is increasing recognition that the patient must be at the centre of health care decision-making, such that outcomes must be tailored to their individual needs and views. By extension, assisted dying might seem a logical step to help achieve these goals within the realm of end-of-life decision making [ 5 ]. Several jurisdictions, notably Oregon (1997) and the Netherlands (2001) have already legalised assisted dying in some form. These factors have contributed to ongoing legislative discussions within Parliaments for almost a decade, with current opinion polling suggesting a majority of medical practitioners and the public in favour of physician-assisted suicide [ 6 ].

Viability of assisted dying in practice

In the UK, a model for assisted dying has been developed from the legal structure found within the Assisted Dying Bill introduced by Lord Falconer in the House of Lords in 2013 [ 7 ]. Assisted dying could only be considered under circumstances in which a patient of legal age is diagnosed with a progressive disease that is irreversible by treatment and is “reasonably expected to die within six months” [ 7 ]. Registered medical practitioners would make such decisions for patients with terminal illnesses. Addressing the technicalities of ‘assisted dying’ requires distinction between ‘physician-assisted suicide’ (offering patients medical actions or cessation of actions by which they can end their own life) and ‘euthanasia’ (whereby the medical practitioner actively induces death). In light of the strong hostility of the medical profession towards active euthanasia, this proposed model, as with previous attempts to legalise assisted dying, permitted only the former [ 8 – 10 ].

However, there is concern that such distinction may be unrealistic in practice because medical practitioners could find themselves with a patient who had failed to successfully end their own life and was subsequently left in a state of greater suffering. Were such a patient no longer able to give consent, a heavy burden would then be placed on the physician regarding how to proceed. Moreover, the practice of physician-assisted suicide might be deemed discriminatory, for example by giving only patients with good mobility control over their own method of death.

The Assisted Dying Bill 2013 included the provision that any terminal prognosis must be confirmed and attested by a second registered practitioner. The strictness of such criteria has parallels to a similar double-physician requirement when procuring a legal abortion under the 1967 Abortion Act. The stated aims of the provision in both cases are as follows: first, to check the accuracy of the prognosis upon which the decision was being made; second, to ensure that the situation meets the required criteria; and third, to check that such a decision was taken by the patient after full consideration of all available options [ 11 , 12 ]. By having a second independent doctor, the legislation ensures that all three checks are met without prejudice or mistake.

Problematic for any protocol for assisted dying is the fact that estimates of life expectancy in terminal prognoses are erroneous in 80.3% of cases [ 13 ]. Furthermore, the accuracy of such prognoses deteriorates with increased length of clinical predicted survival. Forecasts of survival times are based largely on past clinical experience, and the inherent variability between patients makes this more of an art than a science. This brings to concern both the accuracy of any prognosis meeting the six-month threshold and the validity of requests for assisted dying based partly or wholly on predicted survival times. Whilst the majority of errors in life expectancy forecasts are a matter of over-optimism and hence would not affect either of those two concerns, many cases remain unaccounted for. Overly pessimistic forecasts occur in 17.3% of prognoses; hence we must decide whether the one in six patients making a decision based on an inaccurate prognosis is too high a cost to justify the use of this system. Patients requesting an assisted death often cite future expectations of dependency, loss of dignity, or pain [ 14 ]. If the hypothetical point at which the progression of their illness means they would consider life to be not worth living is not, as informed, mere weeks away but in fact many more months, then this information would have resulted in a different decision outcome and potentiated unnecessary loss of life.

Whilst the presence of a second doctor would be expected to mitigate such forecasting errors, the anchoring bias of the initial prediction may be enough to similarly reduce the accuracy of the second estimate. It is prudent to question the true independence of a second medical practitioner, and whether this second consultation could become more of a formality, as has now become the case with abortion [ 15 ].

Another challenge for an assisted dying system would be to recognise whether patients requesting death were legally competent to make that decision. Consider that any request for suicide from a patient with clinical depression is generally categorised as a manifestation of that mental disorder, thereby lacking capacity. It is arguably impossible to separate out the natural reactions to terminal illness and clinical depression. Indeed, there is evidence that major depressive disorders afflict between 25% and 77% of patients with terminal illness [ 16 , 17 ]. Any protocol for assisted dying must first determine what qualifies as a ‘fit mental state’ for a terminal patient.

The need for assisted dying

It could be argued that a doctor’s fundamental duty is to alleviate forms of suffering in the best interests of the patient. The avoidance of physical pain, as an obvious manifestation of suffering, might explain why assisted dying would be both necessary and within the duties of a doctor to provide. The evolving principle in common law known as the ‘Doctrine of Double Effect’ offers a solution to this problem [ 18 ]. This legal judgement stated that “[a doctor] is entitled to do all that is proper and necessary to relieve pain even if the measures he takes may incidentally shorten life”. This entails that a protocol already exists for patients searching for an escape from chronic pain. Furthermore, numerous retrospective studies have revealed very little correlation between opioid dose and mean survival times: one study of over 700 opioid-treated patients found that the variation in survival time from high-dose opioid treatment is less than 10% [ 19 – 21 ]. It can therefore be said that pain alone, if appropriately managed, should never be cause for considering assisted dying as an alternative.

By contrast, the ‘Doctrine of Double Effect’ might be seen as a subjective interpretation that has been applied unequally due to a lack of specialist training or knowledge [ 22 ]. Despite this, the principle can be easily understood and poor awareness can be remedied by improvements in medical education and standardisation of protocols. Moreover, should we choose to accept arguments for assisted dying that are based upon inadequate administration of pain medication, we set a precedent for conceding shortcomings in palliative care and other end-of-life treatments. Offering hastened death could become an alternative to actively seeking to improve such failings.

Whilst much has been made of the ‘pain argument’ here, the call for assisted dying is rarely this simple. Many patients also suffer a loss of dignity, often due to their lack of mobility – the inability to relieve oneself without help is a potent example. Beyond this are additional fears of further debilitation and the emotional costs of dealing with chronic illness, both for the patient and for their relatives and friends. A study of terminal patients in Oregon showed that these were the most significant reasons behind requests for assisted suicide, the next commonest reason being the perception of themselves as a ‘burden’ [ 14 ]. Clearly, we could seek to provide balanced, compassionate medical care for these patients, and still fail to address these points.

Developments in healthcare and technology may reduce this emotional burden, but remain an imperfect solution.

Rights of patients and limitations of their autonomy

J.S. Mill’s pithy dictum describes autonomy as follows: “over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign” [ 23 ]. Not only has the sanctity of bodily autonomy profoundly influenced the development of liberal democracies, it has also provoked a holistic shift in making our healthcare systems more patient-centred – “care that meets and responds to patients’ wants, needs and preferences and where patients are autonomous and able to decide for themselves” [ 5 ]. The ethical principle of controlling the fate of one’s own body is inherently relevant to the debate on assisted dying. It is difficult to reconcile that citizens may have the right to do almost anything to and with their own bodies– from participating in extreme sports to having elective plastic surgery – yet a terminal patient cannot choose to avoid experiencing additional months of discomfort or loss of dignity in their final months of life.

Expectation of individual liberty has been codified in law. The right to bodily autonomy has been interpreted to be included under Article 8 - the right to privacy - of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and subsequently the Human Rights Act (HRA) [ 24 , 25 ]. Moreover, the ECHR underpins the right of individuals to ‘inherent dignity’ [ 26 ]. Hence, if an individual feels that dignity is unattainable due to the progression of a terminal illness, then taking recourse though assisted dying ought to be a legitimate option.

Conversely, there are two notable oversights in this interpretation of a right to assisted dying as an extension of the principles of bodily autonomy:

First, it would be wrong to view individual liberty as absolute. The HRA allows for exceptions to Article 8 on grounds of ‘health or morals’ [ 25 ]. The principle of autonomy is not inviolable. Governments have limited such privileges for the protection of individuals and society, for example by criminalizing the use of recreational drugs or the selling of one’s own organs. The preservation of life by denying assisted dying could fall within this category.

Second, the right of autonomy is not necessarily intrinsic to human beings but, as Kant argued, is dependent on our ‘rational nature’ [ 27 ]. This concept sees autonomy as an exercise of ‘evaluative choice’ [ 27 ], requiring rationality on the part of individuals to appreciate the nature of options and their consequences. To achieve true autonomy, there must be sufficient information to make those rational decisions; this is the basis of informed consent and why it is a fundamental duty of a doctor to offer a patient an informed series of treatment options [ 28 ]. The logistical issue is that doctors are unable to advise patients regarding the point at which their situation becomes less preferable to being dead. No doctor (or individual) has any knowledge or experience of what ‘death’ may be like. Hence, in this case, the idea of exercising true autonomy through informed consent might be considered meaningless.

Legalising assisted dying by attempting to establish an absolute right to bodily autonomy may undermine other individual and group rights. Vulnerable patients may feel pressured into assisted dying because of social, emotional, or financial strains placed on family and/or friends. This is exemplified by the trend showing that the proportion of patients stating ‘relief of burden’ on others as the reason for requesting assisted dying has risen from 17% to 25% in Oregon since legalisation [ 29 ]. One could even consider the risk of assisted dying becoming an expected choice rather than a free one. Thus, assisted dying may erode the elemental right to life of terminal patients as the value of their life becomes tied to relative costs to society and to those around them.

Moreover, by creating one class of individuals for whom life is expendable, that particular view may be extended by society to all groups possessing such attributes (e.g. the permanently disabled). There would be a definite risk to the rights of these vulnerable groups in the form of society being less willing to provide for their health and social care.

It is often raised that the limited legalisation of assisted dying would inevitably become extended in scope, but this is not necessarily a flaw. Even if the right to determine the manner of death were later extended to a wider group of people, posterity may reflect positively on such a change, just as extending the franchise to women ultimately led to legislation demanding equal pay.

Effect on health professionals and their role

‘To act in the best interest of the patient’ is often cited as a central duty of the doctor [ 28 ]. This concept of ‘best interest’ guiding the doctor’s action has seen the development of two important ethical principles: beneficence and non-maleficence. Beneficence mandates that the actions of the doctor must be aimed to bring about benefit (clinical improvement) for the patient, usually measured in terms of reduced morbidity or mortality; non-maleficence requires that the doctor not carry out treatment that is likely to cause overall harm the patient [ 30 ]. These traditional ethical imperatives on a doctor both conflict with intentionally hastening the death of a patient, and a resolution of this tension would require redefining what constitutes ‘acting in the best interest’.

A further dimension is the potential reluctance of health professionals to engage in a practice that contravenes their own ethical beliefs, particularly as this would affect doctors who never entered training in the knowledge that assisting patients to die would be an expected duty. This is certainly no argument against the introduction of assisted dying; indeed, a recent survey of a cohort of NHS doctors found that 46% would seriously consider requests from patients to undertake steps to hasten death [ 31 ]. It merely expresses the point that any early model would have to account for the fact that an initial 54% of the doctors in the NHS would be required to advise qualifying patients of assisted dying as a legitimate option, despite disagreeing with it in principle.

Furthermore, doctors who agree ethically with this practice may find themselves facing conflicts of interest. It is expensive to treat chronically ill patients, particularly in the final months of life [ 32 ]. Moreover, it would be difficult for commissioners to ignore the fact that the sustained treatment of one individual could deprive many others from access to surgery or access to novel drugs. Such an argument does not suggest that doctors or any other hospital staff would treat this practice without appropriate respect or care; rather it acknowledges the need for appropriate rationing of care and questions the intentions of service providers. The perception of an ulterior motive could negatively impact patient trust. One survey showed that a reasonable minority of patients (27%) – and particularly particularly the elderly – believe that legalising assisted dying would lessen their trust in their personal physician [ 33 ]. The costs of weakened trust in the doctor-patient relationship could far outweigh the benefits of assisted dying, particularly given the importance of trust when treating a chronic patient for an extended period of time.

There is no doubt that assisted dying would empower some patients to maximise control over the timing and manner of their own death. Such expression of autonomy would surely solidify moves towards a patient-centred approach to healthcare. However, the capacity for such consensual requests remains in doubt. Clinically, the patient’s state of mind and the reliability of diagnostic predictions are of issue; philosophically, the idea of informed consent for death is contradictory. The implications for patients, physicians and society have been weighed extensively within this article. The central tenet throughout has been the balancing of an individual’s right to escape a circumstance that they find intolerable, alongside the consequential changes to their other rights, and the rights and responsibilities of third parties. Ultimately, the challenge is for us as a society to decide where this balance lies.

About the debate

The Varsity Medical Debate was started in 2008 with the aim of allowing students, professors and members of the polis, to engage in discussion about ethics and policy within healthcare. Utilising the age-old rivalry between the two Universities, the debate encourages medical students from both Oxford and Cambridge to consider and articulate the arguments behind topics that will feature heavily in their future careers.

The debate was judged on the logic, coherence, and evidence in arguments, as well as flair in presentation. Although the debaters may not have necessarily agreed with their allocated side, the debate format required them to acknowledge a particular school of thought and present the key arguments behind it. Oxford, who opposed the motion, was awarded the victory in the debate; however, this does not mean that the judges believe that position ought to become public policy.

Colgrove J: The McKeown thesis: a historical controversy and its enduring influence. Am J Public Health. 2002, 92: 725-729. 10.2105/AJPH.92.5.725

Article   Google Scholar  

Yach D, Hawkes C, Linn Gould C, Hofman K: The global burden of chronic diseases: overcoming impediments to prevention and control. J Am Med Assoc. 2004, 291 (21): 2616-2622. 10.1001/jama.291.21.2616. doi:10.1001/jama.291.21.2616

Lankhorst EK, Spreeuwenberg C: Managing Chronic Conditions. Experience in Eight Countries. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Edited by: Nolte E, Cécile K, Martin MK. 2008, The Netherlands: WHO Regional Office Europe

Google Scholar  

Hudson PL, Kristjanson LJ, Ashby M: Desire for hastened death in patients with advanced disease and the evidence base of clinical guidelines: a systematic review. Palliat Med. 2006, 20: 693-701. 10.1177/0269216306071799

Hogg C: Patient-Centred Care - Tomorrow’s Doctors. 2004, GMC

Harris D, Richard B, Khanna P: Assisted dying: the ongoing debate. Postgrad Med J. 2006, 82 (970): 479-482. doi:10.1136/pgmj.2006.047530

House of Lords assisted Dying Bill: House of Lords. 2013, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2013-2014/0024/2014024.pdf (accessed 23 October 2013)

House of Lords Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill: House of Lords. 2005, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/036/2006036.pdf (accessed 15 Feb 2006)

Sanders K, Chaloner C: Voluntary euthanasia: ethical concepts and definitions. Nurs Stand. 2007, 21 (35): 41-44. 10.7748/ns2007.05.21.35.41.c4554. 10.7748/ns2007.05.21.35.41.c4554

Lee W, Price A, Rayner L, Hotopf M: Survey of doctors’ opinions of the legalisation of physician assisted suicide. BMC Med Ethics. 2009, 10: 2- 10.1186/1472-6939-10-2

House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee, Scientific Developments Relating to the Abortion Act 1967. 2007, London: tso, Volume 1

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Campaigns and Opinions. http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-opinions/briefings-and-qas-/human-fertilisation-and-embryology-bill/brie-1

Christakis NA, Lamont EB: Extent and determinants of error in physicians’ prognoses in terminally ill patients. BMJ. 2000, 320: 469-473. 10.1136/bmj.320.7233.469

Ganzini L, Goy E, Dobscha S: Oregonians’ reasons for requesting physician aid in dying. J Am Med Assoc Int Med. 2009, 169 (5): 489-492. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2008.579

Care Quality Commision. Findings of Termination of Pregnancy Inspections Published. 2012, http://www.cqc.org.uk/media/findings-termination-pregnancy-inspections-published , July

Watson M, Lucas C, Hoy A: Oxford Handbook of Palliative Care. 2005, Oxford: Oxford University Medical Press

Fine R: Depression, anxiety, and delirium in the terminally ill patient. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2001, 14 (2): 130-133.

R v Adams [1957] Crim LR 773.

Morita T, Tsunoda J, Inoue S, Chihara S: Effects of high dose opioids and sedatives on survival in terminally ill cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2001, 21 (4): 282-289. doi:10.1016/S0885-3924(01)00258-5

Bengoechea I, Gutiérrez S, Vrotsou K, Onaindia M, Lopez J: Opioid use at the end of life and survival in a hospital at home unit. J Palliat Med. 2010, 100828074323069: doi:10.1089/jpm.2010.0031

Thorns A, Sykes N: Opioid use in last week of life and implications for end-of-life decision-making. Lancet. 2000, 356 (9227): 398-399. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02534-4

Preston T, Patterson J: The rule of double effect. N Engl J Med. 1998, 338: 1389-1391.

Mill JS: “On Liberty” in On Liberty and Other Essays. 14-15.

Human Rights Act. 1998, HMSO

Judgment on the Merits Delivered by a Chamber. Y.F. v. TURKEY, no. 24209, /94, ECHR 2003-IV

McCrudden C: Human dignity and judicial interpretation of human rights. Eur J Int Law. 2008, 19 (4): 655-724. 10.1093/ejil/chn043. doi:10.1093/ejil/chn043

Savulescu J: Autonomy, the Good Life and Controversial Choices. 2006

General Medical Council: Good Medical Practice. 2013, GMC

Oregon Department of Human Services. Fifth Annual Report on Oregon’s Death with Dignity act. http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year5.pdf

Campbell : Medical Ethics. 1997, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Ward B, Tate P: Attitudes among NHS doctors to requests for euthanasia. BMJ. 1994, 308: 1332- 10.1136/bmj.308.6940.1332

National Audit Office. End of Life Care : Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. HC 1043 Session 2007-2008. 2008, NAO

Hall M, Trachtenberg M, Duggan E: The impact on patient trust of legalising physician aid in dying. J Med Ethics. 2005, 31 (12): 693-697. doi:10.1136/jme.2004.011452

Download references

Acknowledgements

For Cambridge University: Hilmi Bayri (Trinity), Alistair Bolger (Jesus), Casey Swerner (St Johns).

For Oxford University: Devan Sinha (Brasenose), Thomas Frost (Lincoln), Collis Tahzib (Lincoln).

Martin Farrell (Cambridge).

Baroness Finlay: Professor of Palliative Care Medicine and former President of the Royal Society of Medicine.

Dr. Roger Armour: Vascular Surgeon and Inventor of the Lens Free Ophthalmoscope.

Mr. Robert Preston: Director of Living and Dying Well.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Lincoln College, Turl Street, Oxford, OX1 3DR, UK

Thomas D G Frost

Brasenose College, Oxford, OX1 4AJ, UK

Devan Sinha

Green Templeton College, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6HG, UK

Barnabas J Gilbert

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barnabas J Gilbert .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

All authors planned and elucidated the layout. TDGF and DS drafted the manuscript which was critically edited and added to by BJG. All authors have read and approved the final draft.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Frost, T.D.G., Sinha, D. & Gilbert, B.J. Should assisted dying be legalised?. Philos Ethics Humanit Med 9 , 3 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-9-3

Download citation

Received : 12 November 2013

Accepted : 11 January 2014

Published : 15 January 2014

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-9-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Assisted dying
• Legalisation
• Physician-assisted suicide

Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine

ISSN: 1747-5341

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Reason and Meaning

Philosophical reflections on life, death, and the meaning of life, summary of james rachels, “active and passive euthanasia”.

The Death of Socrates , by  Jacques-Louis David (1787)

The late philosopher James Rachels published one of the most salient pieces on the euthanasia (E) debate in 1975 in The New England Journal of Medicine titled “Active and Passive Euthanasia.” Here is a brief outline of his argument.

The distinction between active euthanasia (AE) and passive (PE) is thought crucial. This is mistaken. Why?

• AE is preferable to PE because it reduces suffering.

Rachels understands saving all defective newborns or destroying certain ones (if they have Down’s syndrome (DS) or congenital defects for example), but he doesn’t understand allowing them to die slowly and painfully.

• Given the distinction, life & death decisions are made on irrelevant grounds. For example, intestinal blockage (IB) allows us to let a DS baby die, but wo/ the IB we would have to kill it. But the blockage is irrelevant. The issue is whether the DS baby should live. The distinction between AE and PE make this situation absurd—it leads to us thinking IB was important.
• Killing is not worse than letting die. Consider 1) Smith drowns his cousin for money; and 2) Jones lets his cousin drown for money. It doesn’t seem there is any moral difference between the 2 cases. Similarly, whether you kill or let die for a good motive—say to relieve suffering—the act is right or wrong independent of how you brought death about. In both cases, the intent or motive is primarily to terminate life (and relieve suffering or costs).

We tend to think killing is worse than letting die because usually bad guys kill and physicians let die. But this doesn’t mean that there is something intrinsic to killing which is worse than letting die.

Counter-argument – In PE the physician does nothing and the disease kills the patient. In AE the physician does something to kill the patient.

Rachel’s Response – 1) Physicians do do something when they allow people to die—they let them die. That is a type of action. 2) It is bad to cause someone’s death because death is ordinarily thought bad for them. But if death has been deemed preferable, then bringing about death is no longer bad. 3) MDs may have to go along with the law, but the distinction between active and passive euthanasia cannot be defended philosophically.

Comment – This is one of the most air-tight and flawlessly reasoned pieces I have read in the medical ethics literature. And my sense is that this argument is increasingly winning the day.

Share this:

9 thoughts on “ summary of james rachels, “active and passive euthanasia” ”.

Please I wanna write a work on James Rachel morality of euthanasia, a critique though. Please I need a guideline. It’s my project. Thanks.

good luck with that, as his argument is air tight.

Any intent to end life in itself constitutes murder

you may be a history professor but your understanding of philosophical issues is quite simplistic.

you really don’t understand Rachels’ argument.

HI I have an assignment on Rachels’ arguments am confused on which type of euthanasia he is supporting and which one he is against on what reason.

Here is what I get from Rachel’s argument:

D: The difference between actively killing and passively letting die is in itself morally important. L: Jones’s behavior is less reprehensible than Smith’s.

P1: If D, then L. P2: It’s not true that L. Conclusion: Therefore, it’s not true that D. (valid, modus tollens argument)

And from there he states active euthanasia is okay.

What I find wrong with his assessment is that he conceals the word “always” from his statement D. Let’s reconsider that:

D: The difference between actively killing and passively letting die is ALWAYS in itself morally important. L: Jones’s behavior is less reprehensible than Smith’s.

Therefore, his true conclusion is that it’s NOT ALWAYS true that the difference between actively killing and passively letting die in itself is morally important. But that deflates the power of his argument. It may be that it’s not important in the Jones-Smith case but is important in euthanasia.

It’s similar to why some people may save the 5 people in the trolley problem by flipping a switch but at the same won’t push a fat man to stop the trolley.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of new posts by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology

Philosophy, One Thousand Words at a Time

Euthanasia, or Mercy Killing

Author: Nathan Nobis Category: Ethics Word count: 1000

Listen here

Sadly, there are people in very bad medical conditions who want to die. They are in pain, they are suffering, and they no longer find their quality of life to be at an acceptable level anymore.

When people like this are kept alive by machines or other medical treatments, can it be morally permissible to let them die ?

Advocates of “passive euthanasia” argue that it can be. Their reasons, however, suggest that it can sometimes be not wrong to actively kill some patients, i.e., that “active euthanasia” can be permissible also. [1] This essay reviews these arguments.

1. Passive Euthanasia

Denying that passive euthanasia is ever morally permissible suggests that we must always do everything we can to try to keep someone alive, even if they are miserable, want to die, and say so. To many, that’s just cruel. [2]

Passive euthanasia can be directly supported by both consequentialist (or utilitarian) and Kantian ethics. [3]

For the consequentialist, the patient being out of their misery is a better consequence for them , and overall, than their staying alive: this decreases the total amount of pain and unhappiness in the world, and no other choice would produce more good, for them or overall.

For a Kantian, letting them die respects their autonomy or decisions about matters that profoundly affect their own lives: this respects them as “ends in themselves,” whereas forcing them to live treats them as a “mere means” toward our ends, not their own.

Passive euthanasia can also be supported by stating conditions when it can be OK to let someone die. We begin with an ‘if’ and develop a principle:

(a) someone is dying, and (b) is in horrible pain and suffering, and (c) that pain and suffering cannot be relieved, and (d) that person wants to die and says so, and (e) informed, thoughtful and caring people agree that the person would be better off no longer living . . ,

then it can be permissible to let that person die. [4]

Passive euthanasia, then, can be justified in a variety of ways.

2. Active Euthanasia

To see why active euthanasia might be permissible, we begin by reflecting on why passive euthanasia might be OK: it gets people out of their misery and respects what they want for their own lives.

We then observe that these goals can often be pursued more directly and immediately by, say, giving them an overdose of pain-killing medications. Letting people die can take a long time, and that time might be full of unwanted suffering. Killing people, when they want to be killed, achieves their goals, more quickly.

So, it seems that if passive euthanasia can be permissible, so can active.

3. Objections

There are many objections to this reasoning. Some concern euthanasia in general.

3.1. Some claim that pain can always be controlled and so there is never a need to euthanize anyone. However, this insistence that pain can always be made bearable is, sadly, not true.

3.2. Some argue that “miracles” are possible – there’s always a chance that someone recovers – and so euthanasia is wrong. But making important decisions on very unlikely chances is often unwise. Most interestingly though, euthanasia would never prevent a miracle, especially one of divine origins.

Further objections claim there are important differences between active and passive euthanasia, making passive permissible but active wrong.

3.3. Some argue that it’s always wrong to intentionally kill someone, so active euthanasia is wrong. In reply, while it’s, at least, nearly always wrong to kill people, this is arguably because people usually want to live and do not have lives full of pain. Perhaps killing can be justified when this is not the case. [5]

3.4. Some argue that allowing active euthanasia might put us on a “slippery slope” to murdering people who want to live. But this hasn’t happened where active euthanasia is allowed, since we do and would have safeguards to lessen this possibility, as we do with other things that might lead to bad results if misused.

3.5. Some argue that there are important moral differences between allowing something to happen and doing something or because killing someone and letting them die are profoundly different, and so passive and active euthanasia should be judged differently. But consider this case:

An aunt will inherit lots of money if her five-year-old nephew dies. She plans to drown him in the bathtub and make it look like an accident. He just started his bath; she’s on her way to the bathroom to drown him. She opens the bathroom door and is delighted to see that he has slipped in the bathtub and is drowning. She watches, ready to push him under if he steadies himself and saves his own life. But, as her luck would have it, he drowns; she never touches him throughout the ordeal. She inherits the money. [6]

If she claimed that she didn’t “do anything,” she did : she stood there, and doing nothing is doing something . And letting someone die can be as bad , or nearly as bad , and perhaps sometimes even worse than killing someone [7] : indeed, a way to kill someone is to let them die. So these distinctions are, at least, not clear.

3.6. A final concern is that especially if active euthanasia were allowed, some people could be wrongfully killed. This is possible: some people might wrongfully break (potentially good) rules. But we cannot ignore that if euthanasia is not allowed, it might be that some people could be wrongly kept alive. Which wrong is more likely? Which wrong is worse?

4. Conclusion

While death is, arguably, usually bad for the person who dies, the goal of euthanasia is to make this less bad: the word euthanasia means a “good death.” These issues are important, and not just for people currently facing hard choices about death. None of us knows what will happen to us: at any time, an accident or illness might force these issues upon us, and so we should engage them more deeply, now. [8]

[1] The discussion and arguments here are largely based on James Rachels ’ (1941-2003) famous and widely-reprinted article “ Active and Passive Euthanasia,” New England Journal of Medicine 1975; 292: 78-80 .

[2] The discussion here concerns what’s called voluntary euthanasia, where a person wants to die and says so. There are other types of euthanasia though. Non-voluntary euthanasia involves an individual who neither wants to die nor wants to live, e.g., someone who has been unconscious for a long time, say in a coma, and we have good reason to believe that consciousness will never return: they currently don’t literally want anything and we usually don’t know what they would have wanted , since people usually don’t discuss this. What is sometimes called involuntary “euthanasia” involves someone who wants to live and says so . If such a person is let die or killed, this is not euthanasia: in all or nearly all cases, this is murder or wrongful killing , and so won’t be discussed further here.

These definitions cover most actual cases of euthanasia, but they aren’t perfect. First, it could happen that someone said that, if they were to fall into a permanent coma, they would very much want their body to be kept alive for as long as possible, but nobody knows this is what they wanted: if they are euthanized, is that in voluntary or non -voluntary? It could also happen that someone wants to die, but has no way of communicating that (suppose they have an extreme form of “ locked-in syndrome ,” with eye paralysis too, so they cannot even blink out messages): if they are euthanized, is that voluntary or non-voluntary? These cases are unclear, given the characterizations above, as are further possibilities of someone who wants to die but nobody knows that and someone who wants to live but nobody can tell .

Non-human animals who are judged to have a poor quality of life due to serious health problems are often (actively) euthanized: is this best considered a form of non-voluntary euthanasia, or potentially a different type of voluntary euthanasia? These animals have some current wants or desires, unlike a coma patient, but probably don’t have a specific want or desire to die, unlike in typical voluntary euthanasia cases. 

[3] Consequentialism and Kantianism can be used to support euthanasia (although Kant himself might have opposed it: Kant’s own judgments on many moral issues and the positions on moral issues that his theories arguably support sometimes diverge). But these theories do urge us to be very cautious about bringing about someone’s death, including our own.

Consequentialists would, and should, urge especially anyone who doesn’t have a challenging medical condition but wishes to die to seek counseling and assistance to help find happiness and fulfillment: in most cases, this would be better than death for that person and for promoting overall happiness. “ It gets better ,” the saying goes: it’s possible for someone to be euthanized (passively or actively), or commit suicide (if someone euthanizes themselves, this is a type of suicide; if they need assistance to do this, this is assisted suicide ), whose death is not in their own best interest or contributes to the greatest overall good. Indeed, some people have wished to die, have been prevented from ending their own life, come to appreciate their own life later, and then have been glad that they had not ended their life when they wanted to do so earlier. (However, it’s also sometimes true that people want to die, they live, and are eventually able to live what they report to be fulfilling lives, yet they still they wish they had died: Dax Cowart is a well-known case perhaps like this).

And Kantians don’t think that autonomy is unrestricted or limitless: just because we want something for ourselves doesn’t mean we should get it. Kantians firmly reject an attitude of “It’s your life, so do whatever you want with it,” since we have obligations to respect ourselves (and our future selves), given our value as persons, and this respect for ourselves could rule out some cases of euthanasia and suicide.

[4] The details of a principle like this, however, take us to harder questions about euthanasia, harder than those that arise in most circumstances: for examples, what if someone wants to die now but isn’t currently in horrible pain and suffering, or is expecting to die, but many years later after a very slow decline? Should anyone else have “say” over your own life or judge whether some pain and suffering is “horrible enough” for you to reasonably wish to die? If so, who? What if someone isn’t dying and doesn’t even have a bad medical condition but just finds their life not worth living and so wants to die (and so, say, plans to starve themselves to death or do other things that will result in their death)? These harder questions, and others, would need to be addressed for a complete defense of this or similar principles and any arguments based on them.

[5] Some might claim that their intention in any euthanasia is not to kill anyone: killing is an unintended consequence of their real intention, which might be to make the patient comfortable. If this makes sense, they might claim that they are not engaged in any intentional killing, so they aren’t violating any moral principle against intentional killing. This type of reasoning is related to what’s called the “Doctrine of Double Effect.”

[6] This case is from James Rachels. Here is another example that addresses the distinction between doing something versus allowing something to happen :

In a deep forest, hiking alone, Adam finds someone who has fallen into a deep pit. They ask him to throw them a rope so they can climb out. Adam doesn’t and they eventually starve to death. Adam learns of this on the news but feels fine since, he tells himself, “I didn’t do anything there. I did nothing wrong.”

To most, Adam clearly did something  –  he didn’t just allow something to happen – and he did something wrong: what he did , standing there not throwing the rope, was wrong.

[7] For tragic reflections that letting someone die can be worse than killing them, see Gary Comstock, “You Should Not Have Let Your Baby Die,” The New York Times , July 12, 2017 .

[8] Thanks to Zach Blaesi, Taylor Cyr, Chelsea Haramia, Dan Lowe, Travis Rodgers and Dan Peterson for comments on and discussion of this essay.

Gary Comstock, “You Should Not Have Let Your Baby Die,” The New York Times , July 12, 2017 .

James Rachels, “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” New England Journal of Medicine 1975; 292: 78-80.

For Further Reading

Young, Robert, “Voluntary Euthanasia”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta .

Cholbi, Michael, “Suicide”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) .

Woollard, Fiona and Howard-Snyder, Frances, “Doing vs. Allowing Harm”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) .

McIntyre, Alison, “Doctrine of Double Effect”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) .

Related Essays

Applied Ethics by Chelsea Haramia

The Badness of Death by Duncan Purves

Is Death Bad? Epicurus and Lucretius on the Fear of Death by Frederik Kaufman

The Doctrine of Double Effect: Do Intentions Matter to Ethics? by Gabriel Andrade

Deontology: Kantian Ethics by Andrew Chapman

Consequentialism by Shane Gronholz

Principlism in Biomedical Ethics: Respect for Autonomy, Non-Maleficence, Beneficence, and Justice  by G. M. Trujillo, Jr.

Can We Believe in Miracles? by Tomas Bogardus

Possibility and Necessity: An Introduction to Modality  by Andre Leo Rusavuk

Are We Animals? Animalism and Personal Identity by Kristin Seemuth Whaley

PDF Download

Download this essay in PDF . 

Acknowledgments 

This essay is an abbreviated version of a longer chapter of the same title published in Noah Levin, ed.,  Introduction to Ethics: An Open Educational Resource (NGE Press, 2019) .  Nathan is grateful to Noah Levin for the occasion and inspiration to write these essays. 

About the Author

Nathan Nobis is a Professor of Philosophy at Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA. He is the author of Animals & Ethics 101 , co-author of  Thinking Critically About Abortion , a co-author of  Chimpanzee Rights , and author or co-author of many other articles, chapters, and reviews in philosophy and ethics. www.NathanNobis.com

Follow 1000-Word Philosophy on  Facebook  and  Twitter  and subscribe to receive email notifications of new essays at  1000WordPhilosophy.com .

Share this:, 11 thoughts on “ euthanasia, or mercy killing ”.

• Pingback: The Doctrine of Double Effect: Do Intentions Matter to Ethics? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Psychological Approaches to Personal Identity: Do Memories and Consciousness Make Us Who We Are? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Are We Animals? Animalism and Personal Identity – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Principlism in Biomedical Ethics: Respect for Autonomy, Non-Maleficence, Beneficence, and Justice – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Personal Identity – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Is Death Bad? Epicurus and Lucretius on the Fear of Death – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Ethics: A Collection of Online Resources and Key Quotes - The Daily Idea
• Pingback: Ethics: A Collection of Online Resources and Key Quotes – The Daily Idea
• Pingback: Speciesism – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Applied Ethics – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Online Philosophy Resources Weekly Update - Daily Nous

Comments are closed.

• Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments

Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?

• Legalization
• Legalization: Medical Perspectives
• Legalization: Lawmakers’ Views
• Vulnerable Groups
• Hippocratic Oath
• Legal Right
• Slippery Slope
• Palliative Care
• Physician Obligation
• Financial Motivations

People who view this page may also like:

• United States vs. International Health Care Spending
• States with Legal Physician-Assisted Suicide
• Should Marijuana Be a Medical Option?

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Euthanasia – Pros & Cons
• Top Pro & Con Quotes
• Historical Timeline
• Did You Know?
• States with Legal Medical Aid in Dying (MAID)
• Religious Perspectives on Euthanasia and Medical Aid in Dying (MAID)
• Euthanasia & Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) around the World
• Landmark Euthanasia and Medical Aid in Dying Court Cases

Cite This Page

• Additional Resources
• Artificial Intelligence
• Private Prisons
• Space Colonization
• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

Euthanasia – Arguments in Favour and Against

Last updated on April 7, 2024 by ClearIAS Team

Euthanasia is the deliberate act of ending a person’s life to relieve them of suffering. It is a complex and ethically sensitive topic that has sparked debates and discussions worldwide. There are different forms of euthanasia, and it is regulated differently in various countries.

Euthanasia (“good death”) is the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. It is also known as ‘mercy killing’.

In many countries, there is a divisive public controversy over the moral, ethical, and legal issues of euthanasia. Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Euthanasia is also classified into active and passive Euthanasia.

Table of Contents

Voluntary, Non-Voluntary, and Involuntary Euthanasia

• Voluntary euthanasia: It is conducted with the consent of the patient and is termed voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries. Jurisdictions, where euthanasia is legal, include the Netherlands, Colombia, Belgium, and Luxembourg.
• Non-Voluntary euthanasia: It is conducted where the consent of the patient is unavailable and is termed non-voluntary euthanasia. Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries. Examples include child euthanasia, which is illegal worldwide but decriminalized under certain specific circumstances in the Netherlands under the Groningen Protocol.
• Involuntary euthanasia: It is conducted against the will of the patient and is termed involuntary euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia is usually considered murder.

Passive vs Active euthanasia

Voluntary, non-voluntary, and involuntary euthanasia can all be further divided into passive or active variants.

• Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments, such as antibiotics, necessary for the continuance of life.
• Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces, such as administering a lethal injection, to kill and is the most controversial means.

Euthanasia debate

Euthanasia raises profound ethical and moral questions. Supporters argue that it can be a compassionate and dignified way to end suffering, particularly in cases of terminal illness.

Opponents argue that it raises significant ethical concerns, including the potential for abuse, coercion, and mistakes in diagnosing terminal conditions.

Arguments in Favor

Historically, the euthanasia debate has tended to focus on several key concerns. According to euthanasia opponent Ezekiel Emanuel, proponents of euthanasia have presented four main arguments:

• that people have a right to self-determination, and thus should be allowed to choose their fate
• assisting a subject to die might be a better choice than requiring that they continue to suffer
• the distinction between passive euthanasia, which is often permitted, and active euthanasia, which is not substantive (or that the underlying principle–the doctrine of double effect–is unreasonable or unsound);
• permitting euthanasia will not necessarily lead to unacceptable consequences. Pro-euthanasia activists often point to countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, and states like Oregon, where euthanasia has been legalized, to argue that it is mostly unproblematic.
• Constitution of India: ‘Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but euthanasia/suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of ‘right to life’. The State must protect life and the physician’s duty to provide care and not to harm patients. Supreme Court in Gian Kaur Case 1996 has held that the right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die.
• Caregiver’s burden: Right-to-die supporters argue that people who have an incurable, degenerative, disabling, or debilitating condition should be allowed to die in dignity. This argument is further defended by those, who have chronic debilitating illness even though it is not terminal such as severe mental illness. The majority of such petitions are filed by the sufferers or family members or their caretakers. The caregiver’s burden is huge and cuts across various financial, emotional, time, physical, mental, and social domains.
• Refusing care: The right to refuse medical treatment is well recognized in law, including medical treatment that sustains or prolongs life. For example, a patient suffering from blood cancer can refuse treatment or deny feeds through a nasogastric tube. Recognition of the right to refuse treatment gives way to passive euthanasia.
• Encouraging organ transplantation: Mercy killing in terminally ill patients provides an opportunity to advocate for organ donation. This, in turn, will help many patients with organ failure waiting for transplantation. Not only does euthanasia give the ‘Right to die‘ for the terminally ill, but also the ‘Right to life‘ for the organ needy patients.

Arguments against

Emanuel argues that there are four major arguments presented by opponents of euthanasia:

• not all deaths are painful;
• alternatives, such as cessation of active treatment, combined with the use of effective pain relief, are available;
• the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is morally significant; and
• legalizing euthanasia will place society on a slippery slope, which will lead to unacceptable consequences
• Euthanasia weakens society’s respect for the sanctity of life.
• Euthanasia might not be in a person’s best interests, for example, getting old-aged parents killed for property will.
• Belief in God’s miracle of curing the terminally ill.
• The prospect of a discovery of a possible cure for the disease shortly.
• Proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary.
• There is no way of properly regulating euthanasia.
• Allowing euthanasia will lead to less good care for the terminally ill.
• Allowing euthanasia undermines the commitment of doctors and nurses to save lives.
• Euthanasia may become a cost-effective way to treat the terminally ill.
• Allowing euthanasia will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill.
• Euthanasia gives too much power to doctors.

Euthanasia in India

Passive euthanasia is legal in India. On 7 March 2011, the Supreme Court of India legalized passive euthanasia using the withdrawal of life support to patients in a permanent vegetative state. The decision was made as part of the verdict in a case involving Aruna Shanbaug, who had been in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) for 42 years until she died in 2015.

The Aruna Shanbaug Case

In March 2011, the Supreme Court of India passed a historic judgment permitting Passive Euthanasia in the country. This judgment was passed after Pinki Virani’s plea to the highest court in December 2009 under the Constitutional provision of “Next Friend”. It’s a landmark law which places the power of choice in the hands of the individual, over government, medical or religious control which sees all suffering as “destiny”. The Supreme Court specified two irreversible conditions to permit Passive Euthanasia Law in its 2011 Law:

• The brain-dead for whom the ventilator can be switched off.
• Those in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) for whom the feed can be tapered out and pain-managing palliatives be added, according to laid-down international specifications.

The same judgment law also asked for the scrapping of 309 , the code that penalizes those who survive suicide attempts. In December 2014, the Government of India declared its intention.

PIL filed by Common Cause

However, on 25 February 2014, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India termed the judgment in the Aruna Shanbaug case to be ‘inconsistent in itself’ and referred the issue of euthanasia to its five-judge Constitution bench on a PIL filed by Common Cause , which case is the basis of the current debate.

Then, the CJI referred to an earlier Constitution Bench judgment which, in the Gian Kaur case , “did not express any binding view on the subject of euthanasia; rather it reiterated that the legislature would be the appropriate authority to bring change.” Though that judgment said the right to live with dignity under Article 21 was inclusive of the right to die with dignity, it did not conclude the validity of euthanasia, be it active or passive.

“So, the only judgment that holds the field about euthanasia in India is the ruling in the Aruna Shanbaug case, which upholds the validity of passive euthanasia and lays down an elaborate procedure for executing the same on the wrong premise that the Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur had upheld the same,” the CJI said.

Common Cause Case: In 2018, the Supreme Court issued a significant judgment in the Common Cause case. The court recognized the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right and permitted passive euthanasia. It provided guidelines for the process and conditions under which passive euthanasia could be allowed.

Government’s endorsement of Passive Euthanasia

On December 23, 2014, the Government of India endorsed and re-validated the Passive Euthanasia judgment law in a Press Release, after stating in the Rajya Sabha as follows: The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while dismissing the plea for mercy killing in a particular case, laid down comprehensive guidelines to process cases relating to passive euthanasia.

Thereafter, the matter of mercy killing was examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice and it has been decided that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already laid down the guidelines, these should be followed and treated as law in such cases. At present, there is no legislation on this subject and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all.

The court rejected active euthanasia using lethal injection. In the absence of a law regulating euthanasia in India, the court stated that its decision becomes the law of the land until the Indian parliament enacts a suitable law. Active euthanasia, including the administration of lethal compounds to end life, is still illegal in India, and in most countries.

As India had no law about euthanasia, the Supreme Court’s guidelines are law until and unless Parliament passes legislation. The following guidelines were laid down:

• A decision has to be taken to discontinue life support either by the parents the spouse or other close relatives, or in the absence of any of them, such a decision can be taken even by a person or a body of persons acting as a next friend. It can also be taken by the doctors attending the patient. However, the decision should be taken bona fide in the best interest of the patient.
• Even if a decision is taken by the near relatives or doctors or next friend to withdraw life support, such a decision requires approval from the High Court concerned.
• When such an application is filled, the Chief Justice of the High Court should forthwith constitute a Bench of at least two Judges who should decide whether to approve or not. A committee of three reputed doctors to be nominated by the Bench, will report the condition of the patient. Before giving the verdict, a notice regarding the report should be given to the close relatives and the State. After hearing the parties, the High Court can give its verdict.

A law commission had proposed legislation on “passive euthanasia”, it said. According to the Centre, the decision to come out with a bill was taken after considering the directives of the apex court, the law commission’s 241st report, and a private member bill introduced in Parliament in 2014.

The Centre said that initially, a meeting was held under the chairmanship of B.P. Sharma, secretary in the Health and Family Welfare Ministry, on May 22, 2015, to examine the draft of The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill and the draft of The Euthanasia (Regulation) Bill.

This move to introduce a bill is a welcome step to clear the grey areas in the Euthanasia debate. Students can also link to this issue while answering questions on:

• Judicial activism: SC framing laws when the parliament hasn’t. Just like the Visaka case.
• Ethical dilemma in Paper 4 .

In India,  euthanasia has no legal aspect , and there is no penal law yet introduced in the IPC that specifically deals with euthanasia.

• However, the Supreme Court of India legalized passive euthanasia in 2018 with some conditions, allowing patients to withdraw medical support if they go into an irreversible coma.
• Passive euthanasia is a matter of ‘living will’, and an adult in their conscious mind is permitted to refuse medical treatment or voluntarily decide not to take medical treatment to embrace death naturally, under certain conditions.
• Individuals are only allowed to draft a living will while in a normal state of health and mind.
• Active euthanasia remains illegal in India.

Read:  Living wills

Article by: Jishnu J Raju

Aim IAS, IPS, or IFS?

About ClearIAS Team

ClearIAS is one of the most trusted learning platforms in India for UPSC preparation. Around 1 million aspirants learn from the ClearIAS every month.

Our courses and training methods are different from traditional coaching. We give special emphasis on smart work and personal mentorship. Many UPSC toppers thank ClearIAS for our role in their success.

Download the ClearIAS mobile apps now to supplement your self-study efforts with ClearIAS smart-study training.

Reader Interactions

February 11, 2016 at 3:48 pm

excellent one..

February 24, 2016 at 8:34 pm

Giving passive euthanasia to a patient who is already dead (not literally) is a right choice.Its better than making them as well as others to suffer.

July 20, 2017 at 4:28 pm

so very true.

July 1, 2016 at 10:58 pm

If the patient does not wants to suffer and himself asking for euthanasia then voluntary euthanasia should be made legal because it will be difficult for him to live than to die. But in case of involuntary euthanasia, there should be some specific time limit upto which the patient’s relatives must wait for him to recover but if there is no improvement like in case of coma , after 7-10 years , there is less chances of the patient to recover. In such cases , involuntary euthanasia should be made legal.

March 16, 2017 at 12:37 pm

no it is not possible If the patient tends to recover over a period of time or suddenly he becomes normal then the involuntary euthanasia will become very dangerous

March 16, 2017 at 12:35 pm

Very Very Useful

June 26, 2018 at 8:12 am

Helpful source I can use to rely on research. Thank you so much, clear IAS.

May 17, 2019 at 9:58 pm

Thanku for quality content

May 23, 2020 at 10:27 pm

“Mercy Killing ” is a responsible debate . It mainly depends on persons will on his /her life.

July 2, 2020 at 2:26 pm

Euthanasia should not be accepted as there is always some hope for better.

May 24, 2021 at 11:57 am

If under Article 21 of the constitution, right to live with dignity is inclusive of right to die with dignity, then why should the provisions under the Euthanasia act be restricted to the old and dying patients. There are a lot of people in their 60s and 70s with limited financial resources, who feel neglected / unwanted by the family who would like to die with dignity rather than be dependent on their children or the other members of family. They may be in good health but would still like to self determine to end their life with dignity. In such cases the law should allow for such people to adopt active Euthanasia. Such people could be persuaded to donate their organs which will help save other lives.

August 25, 2021 at 9:40 am

euthanasia cannot be legalised because of its higher probability of misuse. whether it is for property, money or because of any family problem

August 4, 2022 at 12:11 pm

A thought for all: If you do not have a choice to life, i.e. choose to be born then how can choosing your own means of death, be fair or valid? Something you cannot create or re-created is not yours to manage. My say: God is the giver of life and He alone should take it. Our sufferings are a means of learning, loving, understanding and above all our closeness to Almighty God.

June 28, 2023 at 6:36 pm

ur death is already written whether you take it or god does so doesnt matter

September 19, 2022 at 12:47 pm

I can’t put my dog to sleep for I am as old as he; and despite our handicaps he also wants to live like me.

Boghos L. Artinian

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
• Indian Police Service (IPS)
• IAS Exam Eligibility
• UPSC Free Study Materials
• UPSC Exam Guidance
• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Syllabus
• UPSC Online
• UPSC Prelims
• UPSC Interview
• UPSC Toppers
• UPSC Previous Year Qns
• UPSC Age Calculator
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• About ClearIAS
• ClearIAS Programs
• ClearIAS Fee Structure
• IAS Coaching
• UPSC Coaching
• UPSC Online Coaching
• ClearIAS Blog
• Important Updates
• Announcements
• Book Review
• ClearIAS App
• Work with us
• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

and many more...

Download Self-Study Plan

Analyse Your Performance and Track Your Progress

Download Study Plan

IAS/IPS/IFS Online Coaching: Target CSE 2025

Cover the entire syllabus of UPSC CSE Prelims and Mains systematically.

Euthanasia: Right to Live or Right to Die Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Euthanasia or mercy killing as it is informally referred is the act of ending a person life if it is deemed to be the only way to help a person get out of their suffering. Mostly euthanasia is practiced on patients who are suffering from terminal illness are experiencing severe pain. Therefore, assisted death seems to be the only way to help the patient come out of their suffering. There are two types of euthanasia.

Active euthanasia or voluntary mercy killing that entails assisting the terminally ill patient to end his/her intractable pain through death. The consent of the patient has to be sought. The other method is involuntary mercy killing which is practiced without the patients consent as the patient may not be in position to do so such as when in a coma.

Whether voluntary or involuntary, mercy killing is a topic that has generated heated debate not only among professionals, but also the general public and laws makers. The physicians should do everything possible to save the lives of their patients, but in extreme situations euthanasia should be considered as an appropriate alternative to save such patients from excruciating pains.

Both schools of thought focus on the rights of the patient. They claim that a patient has a right to demand or refuse any form of medication that will help in overcoming their suffering. If a doctor continues to give or deny treatment to a patient against the patients will, that can be considered as violating he patient’s rights.

Those who oppose legalizing euthanasia are informed by what has happened in Holland. Active euthanasia is legal in this country. Legalizing active euthanasia can easily pave way to also legalizing involuntary euthanasia (Life Circle Books para 9). They claim that if law makers do legalize active mercy killing, it soon “becomes a responsibility and obligation of the medical practitioners” (Life Circle Books para 13).

This is such a dangerous path as it is potentially riddled with loopholes for abuse. Its consequences are beyond comprehension. Most people could abuse it for their own personal gain. Consider a person who is intends to inherit massive estate from a terminally ill guardian. This person can nudge the guardian toward assisted death. If this is the case, how many more deaths would occur in world?

This would also mean that people who are of unsound mind and those struggling with severe depression can ask to be put out of their misery by assisted death. This would also take the death rates to high levels. Most importantly, many terminally ill patients who are not willing to die would develop an immense distrust toward doctors, who would have the right to end therefore lives if it seems impossible for them to recover.

It would also put onto jeopardy live of millions of the elderly citizens who are a burden both economically and otherwise to their families. In this case therefore euthanasia becomes not only illegal, but unethical. Its consequences are too disastrous to imagine. Every alternative to mercy killing such administering pain killers should be explored until a person either improves or dies naturally (Life Circle Books para 25).

However, there are those who feel that euthanasia needs to be re-thought and debated afresh so that law makers can find ways of stipulating statutes that protects both the patients and the doctors who practice it. They argue that each person has a right to determine the direction of their lives. Lives of individuals are their own responsibilities (Kingsbury para 2).

About 80% of adult Americans would support this move as they feel that if a person is terminally ill and the condition cannot be reversed by any medical intervention, slow and painful death is the consequence. No one wants a slow and painful death. People should therefore be assisted to end their lives quickly thus avoid prolonging the process of death (Kingsbury para 3).

While opponents of this arguer that its consequences are beyond repair and that it is subject to abuse, research proves otherwise. Their decision is only informed by the fear of the unknown. In Oregon where it is legal, the law has proved very successful and only very few instances of abuse have been reported.

Oregon euthanasia laws requires that a person must be 18 years and over, of sound mind and ascertained by at least three medical doctors that death is the only end of suffering. The doctor only prescribes the drugs but cannot administer it. It’s the patient who tales the drug voluntary without any help from the doctor.

The proponents argue that those people who are under intractable and intense suffering should be assisted to die in dignity, without pain.

In conclusion, the patient’s right to life must be protected. There are fundamental issues that need to be considered when deciding if to legalize euthanasia or not. Such issues include the consideration of the patient’s wish. However, euthanasia should not be taken as the easy way out.

All possible means to sustain a person’s life should be explored. Lastly, there is a question that still lingers in mind of many. How is the consents and the wish of a patient who is in deep coma ascertained?

Works Cited

Kingsbury, Kathleen. “A New Fight to Legalize Euthanasia.” Time Magazine. Posted, 16, May 2008. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1807401,00.html

Life Circle Books. If Mercy Killing Becomes Legal . New York: Lewistown. n.d. Retrieved from http://www.euthanasia.com/mercy.html

• Why Active Euthanasia is Morally Wrong
• Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia
• Euthanasia and Other Life-Destroying Procedures
• End of life: the medical ethical dilemma
• “On Moral Medicine: Theological Perspective in Medical Ethics” by Stephen Lammers and Allen Verhey
• The Problem of Assistance in Self-Deliverance
• Commercialization of Organ Transplants
• Pros and Cons of the Commercialization of Organ Transplants
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, May 27). Euthanasia: Right to Live or Right to Die. https://ivypanda.com/essays/legalizing-euthanasia-essay/

"Euthanasia: Right to Live or Right to Die." IvyPanda , 27 May 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/legalizing-euthanasia-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Euthanasia: Right to Live or Right to Die'. 27 May.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Euthanasia: Right to Live or Right to Die." May 27, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/legalizing-euthanasia-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Euthanasia: Right to Live or Right to Die." May 27, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/legalizing-euthanasia-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Euthanasia: Right to Live or Right to Die." May 27, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/legalizing-euthanasia-essay/.

• American Life Initiative
• Make Birth Free: A Vision for Congress
• State Spotlight: How Pro-Life Is Your State?
• Lincoln Proposal: An Executive Order
• All Court Cases
• Pro-Life Models & Guides
• Life Litigation Reports
• Annual State Policy Reports
• Testimony & Comments
• Policy Papers
• Latin America
• Why Abortion Is Unsafe
• The Abortion Pill
• Why Pro-Life Organizations Oppose Assisted Suicide
• History Of Assisted Suicide
• Suicide Prevention Model Legislation
• Pushing Roe Over the Brink (Book)
• Studies In Law and Medicine
• Stewardship
• Press & Statements
• Work With Us
• Make General Donation
• LifeGivers: Monthly Giving

Ecuadorian Constitutional Court Legalizes Euthanasia

June 11, 2024 Rocío Gómez

On August 8, 2023, Paola Roldán, an Ecuadorian citizen, filed an unconstitutionality action in Ecuador’s Constitutional Court against Article 144 of the Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code (COIP), which defines simple homicide. Having suffered from ALS for several years, she sought euthanasia and expressed her desire to “die with dignity.” 

After several months of deliberation, the Constitutional Court ruled in her favor, supported by 7 out of 9 judges present. There, in ruling No. 067-23-IN, the Court declared that Article 144 would only remain constitutional if an exception for euthanasia were created: 

This article will remain constitutional provided that (i) the doctor who performs the conduct typified in Article 144 of the COIP is not sanctioned in the case where (ii) a person, expressing their unequivocal, free, and informed consent (or through their representative when they cannot express it), requests to access an active euthanasia procedure; (iii) due to intense suffering from a serious and irreversible bodily injury or a serious and incurable disease.

More broadly, the Court ruled that, in this context, the norm of always preserving life was incompatible with the rights to dignity and personal development (autonomy), and that Ecuador’s laws protecting life must allow exceptions to protect other rights. Additionally, the Court highlighted that doctors’ conscience objections should be respected in active euthanasia procedures. 

The ruling also stated that: 

The Ministry of Public Health, within a maximum period of 2 months from the notification of this ruling, must issue regulations governing the procedure for the application of voluntary and involuntary active euthanasia, considering technical criteria and in line with this ruling. These regulations will be in effect until a new law is approved. The regulations must be submitted to this Court, which will verify their compliance. The National Assembly is mandated to, within a maximum of 12 months from the presentation of the bill, discuss and enact a law regulating euthanasia procedures with the highest standards as established in this ruling. The National Assembly must report quarterly on the progress and compliance with this measure from the receipt of the bill prepared by the Ombudsman’s Office.

In her dissenting opinion, Judge Teresa Nuques Martínez argued that the majority ruling exceeded the Court’s jurisdiction, encroaching on legislative powers. Judge Corral Ponce also dissented. He argued that, while the petitioner’s feelings and thoughts should be respected, Article 144 of the COIP “is not unconstitutional; that the Constitutional Court exceeds its jurisdiction by creating, with manifest and contradictory conceptual errors, an exception to the criminal law ; that the presumption of constitutionality is not broken; that this ruling was not the appropriate action; that human dignity is tied to life, not to living conditions; that the freedom to develop oneself should not undermine human dignity; that active euthanasia is not the solution, but the opposite: euthanasia opens the door to a culture of death, instead of a culture of life.” 

As Judge Nuques Martínez outlined, the Constitutional Court not only exceeded its scope but also mandated the Ministry of Health to do the same. Thus, on April 12, the Ministry of Health published the Procedural Rule for the Application of Voluntary and Involuntary Active Euthanasia. 

The rule contains an extensive list of considerations, none of which justifies the need for euthanasia. The rule also contains numerous errors that confirm that the rule is unconstitutional, that it violates the rule of law, and that it will lead to systematic human rights violations:  

• The rule regulates an act still penalized by the COIP, without a law permitting or decriminalizing euthanasia. (This violates the basic principle of legality.) 
• The rule includes involuntary euthanasia, as required by the Court. Involuntary euthanasia is when a patient cannot express their will, and their legal representative does so on their behalf, provided the patient previously expressed a desire for euthanasia through a will or advance directive. This could lead to situations where the patient, if conscious but unable to express it, cannot revoke their decision to be euthanized (This violates the right to life). 
• The rule denies conscience objection rights to professionals required to provide supplies for euthanasia (Violation of the right to conscience and the right to equality). 
• The rule classifies deaths from euthanasia as “natural deaths,” thus misleading and misrepresenting death statistics and records (Violation of the right to access public information). 

Paola Roldán, the original patient who requested euthanasia in this case, died on March 11, 2024, from “natural causes” according to press reports. 

Following the ruling, Ecuador faces numerous challenges that could be addressed through coordinated action. Martha Cecilia Villafuente, founder of Familia Ecuador, mentioned in an interview that until July 2025, the deadline for the euthanasia law, several political changes should happen that could favor this cause. By then, there will be a new government, a new National Assembly, and three new constitutional court judges. 

Read a Spanish version of this coverage here .

Publications Regarding Beatriz v. El Salvador 

May 8, 2024 Rocío Gómez

Abortion is the leading cause of human death worldwide

April 10, 2024 Rocío Gómez

Bolivia: Santa Cruz withstands international pressure and enacts a law protecting life and family 

March 12, 2024 Rocío Gómez

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.323(7321); 2001 Nov 10

Why active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be legalised

Last month Diane Pretty was refused the legal right to choose the circumstances of her own death. 1 She suffers from motor neurone disease and is experiencing the disintegration of her body. She faces a death that she believes will entail indignity and suffering and physically cannot kill herself. The court has denied her request that her husband be allowed to help her. This decision may be consistent with legal precedent but is morally wrong. That is why the law should be changed.

Suppose that Mrs Pretty became permanently and severely incompetent as a result of brain damage and that her life was being sustained by medical technology. If her doctors believed that medical treatment could provide no benefit because of her inability ever to engage in any self directed activity, then legally they could withdraw life sustaining treatments, including hydration and nutrition. 2 In such circumstances they would foresee that she would die as a result of their failure to perform what would ordinarily be their duty to protect life and health. In most other circumstances clinicians are not allowed this discretion to accelerate foreseeable deaths through inaction.

Against the background of the duty to care, the moral and legal status of not saving a life through failing to treat can be the same as actively taking that life. 3 , 4 For example, a doctor who knowingly allows a patient who could be saved to bleed to death in emergency care might be accused of murder. What is deemed to be morally and legally important here is not the emotionally appealing distinction between omission and commission but the justifiability or otherwise of the clinical outcome. Indeed, the distinction between omission and commission may be of little value in some healthcare settings. When doctors turn off ventilators, foreseeing that death will result, it makes little sense to say that they do so passively.

So it is sometimes acceptable for doctors to stop life sustaining treatments when there are grounds for assuming that this is in the best interests of severely incompetent patients. Equally, action and inaction may be deemed morally and legally equivalent in the context of a deliberate failure to carry out the duty of care to save life when clinicians agree that it should be saved. Thus parliament and the courts should take the next step of recognising that this same equivalence should hold when there is clinical agreement that it is in the best interests of some severely incompetent patients to end their life. 5

The most articulate opponents of involuntary passive and active euthanasia accept that there is no moral difference between commission and omission in the medical withdrawal of life sustaining treatment. Nor do they reject the non-provision of life sustaining treatment in principle. However, they do argue that to be acceptable, such non-provision must fulfil two conditions that rule out involuntary euthanasia in practice. 6 , 7

Firstly, for severely incompetent patients the continuation of treatment must be deemed to be of no medical “benefit” or too “burdensome.” However, for opponents of euthanasia such judgments of benefit and burden must not be linked to any claim that the patient's life is no longer worth living. Once it is accepted that doctors should be allowed to make clinical decisions to end life passively on the basis of such claims, active euthanasia in the best interests of such patients would be the next logical step. Secondly, opponents argue that withdrawing treatment for severely incompetent patients must never be done with the intent of causing death—even if death is a foreseeable consequence. It can only be done to relieve suffering. To do otherwise, they claim, would be tantamount to active euthanasia, and this they see as morally wrong. These arguments are unacceptable for two reasons. 8 , 9

On the one hand, we need to ask what makes life sustaining treatment of no benefit or too burdensome if it can achieve its designated aim of saving life. Severely incompetent patients can only be said to be unable to benefit from further life sustaining treatment or to find it too burdensome if—bottom line—they are judged incapable of benefiting from further life itself. Therefore, when the continuation of life sustaining treatment is described as being of no benefit or of too much burden, the clinician must already have decided that the life of the incompetent patient in question is not worth living and therefore not worth prolonging. This is why withdrawal of treatment is deemed to be in the best interest of the patient and consistent with the duty of care to protect this interest.

On the other hand, if death is in the best interests of some patients—if the withdrawal of life sustaining treatment can be said to be of benefit in this case—then death constitutes a moral good for these patients. And if this is so, why is it wrong to intend to bring about this moral good? For example, suppose a doctor refuses to withdraw life support from an incompetent patient when the clinical team agrees it to be appropriate. He does so for no other reason than his realisation that part of his intention is that she dies a quick and painless death. Far from being morally commendable, his refusal should be viewed as incompatible with what is of real moral importance—the best interests of his patient.

Provided the circumstances are clinically warranted, doctors should be able to withdraw life sustaining treatment when they intend to accelerate death as well as to relieve suffering. Morally, the distinction is irrelevant in this particular context. If passively ending the life of severely incompetent patients is legally and professionally acceptable then involuntary active euthanasia should have the same status.

Returning to Mrs Pretty, why should we not also legalise voluntary active euthanasia in light of these arguments? Were she permanently and severely incompetent, we have seen the circumstances in which her doctors would be allowed to end her life passively and should be allowed to do so actively. Therefore, should she not be able to invite them actively to end her life and to advise them about how this should be done? No one has questioned her competence or courage. Yet her own perception of her best interests, and the perception of those who know and love her, have been judicially overruled.

This decision becomes all the more morally questionable when we realise that Mrs Pretty can refuse life sustaining treatment at any time, and her doctors are legally obliged to respect her choice. 10 Some doctors would probably be only too glad to help Mrs Pretty to end her life. This support should be regarded as a moral good instigated in her interests and at her request. It should be legally condoned—either by the interpretation of existing law by a more courageous judiciary or by new legislation.

Finally, if it can be morally right to kill some competent patients at their request, then it must be morally justified to give them the medical wherewithal to kill themselves. It is open to debate whether what Mrs Pretty requires can best be described as voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide. To provide either of these to appropriate patients who make a competent request represents respect for their autonomy and their desire to die with what they perceive to be dignity.

Of course, any coherent advocate of active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide must take seriously the problem of slippery slopes—of deciding when a request for helping dying is appropriate. Though this may be difficult, it cannot be impossible. The most important question remains: in the face of so much moral right, where is the wrong?

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the advice given by Julie Stone in preparing this manuscript.