ethics of 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

Lecturer in Indigenous Health (Identified)

Social Media Producer

Lecturer in Physiotherapy

PhD Scholarship

Senior Lecturer, HRM or People Analytics

• 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

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Wireless Philosophy

Course: wireless philosophy   >   unit 6, euthanasia: why do people disagree about the ethics of euthanasia.

• Comprehending the argument
• Evaluating the argument

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

Video transcript

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
• SAGE Open Med

Ethical considerations at the end-of-life care

Melahat akdeniz.

1 Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Akdeniz University Hospital, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

Bülent Yardımcı

2 Amerikan Hospital, Şişli/Istanbul, Turkey

Ethem Kavukcu

3 Department of Sports Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Akdeniz University Hospital, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

The goal of end-of-life care for dying patients is to prevent or relieve suffering as much as possible while respecting the patients’ desires. However, physicians face many ethical challenges in end-of-life care. Since the decisions to be made may concern patients’ family members and society as well as the patients, it is important to protect the rights, dignity, and vigor of all parties involved in the clinical ethical decision-making process. Understanding the principles underlying biomedical ethics is important for physicians to solve the problems they face in end-of-life care. The main situations that create ethical difficulties for healthcare professionals are the decisions regarding resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, artificial nutrition and hydration, terminal sedation, withholding and withdrawing treatments, euthanasia, and physician-assisted suicide. Five ethical principles guide healthcare professionals in the management of these situations.

Introduction

Advances in modern medicine and medical technologies have both prolonged life expectancies and changed the natural norms of death. Although many modern treatments and technologies do not cure chronic diseases, medical interventions such as artificial nutrition and respiratory support can prolong the lives of people by providing secondary support. 1 , 2 End-of-life care has become an increasingly important topic in modern medical practice. This process starts with the diagnosis of a fatal disease, and includes the dignity death that the patient desires and the post-death mourning period. 2 Death is an inevitable part of life. Many people at the end of life experience unnecessary difficulty and suffering. Patients’ family members, close friends and informal caregivers also experience a range of problems. They play very important roles in the end-of-life care of their loved ones before, during, and after death. 3

After hearing about a terminal diagnosis, the families of dying patients experience a period of high stress that can be manifested by anger, depression, interpersonal conflict, and psychosomatic problems. 3 , 4 Family members are also primer caregivers for the dying patient. They may feel hopelessness, anger, guilt, and powerlessness when they cannot relieve the suffering of their terminally ill family member. 4

From an ethical perspective, the patient rather than the family, proxy or physician makes decisions best about limiting treatment or treatments that do not provide cures but prolong life for a while. However, if the patient has lost the ability to make decisions, the family, the proxy health care or the physician must make a decision about the care to be provided to the patient. 4 , 5 Family members who feel sadness, fear, anxiety, and are stressed out because a loved one is terminally ill will have a hard time to make decisions. If they do not know their loved one’s preferences regarding end-of-life care, they cannot be sure about whether they can give the most appropriate decisions for the patient. This can increase the anxiety and stress of family members. Sometimes family members may have different preferences regarding the care. While some family members clearly and unambivalently want that “everything” is done to keep their loved one alive, others are unable to decide to limit treatment and may want the medical staff to make these decisions for them. In such a situation, the physicians will be in a difficult situation. 3 – 6

The goals of care for terminally ill patients are the alleviation of suffering, the optimization of quality of life until death occurs, and the provision of comfort in death. However, achieving these goals is not always easy. Because physicians, patients, and patients’ family members have to make decisions regarding treatment options such as whether to prolong a person’s life with the support of medical technologies or allow the natural death process to continue, they face various ethical dilemmas related to end-of-life care. 1 – 4 Understanding the principles underlying biomedical ethics is important for physicians and their patients to solve the problems they face in end-of-life care. The ethical principles are autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, fidelity, and justice. 5 , 6

In this article, considerations regarding the application of ethical principles during end-of-life care are discussed.

Universal ethical principles

The ethical principles recognized universal are autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. These “four principles” are common in Eastern and Western cultures, but their application and weight may differ. This article highlights the universally accepted features of these principles. The social and legal aspects that may affect the ethical principles in different cultures can be covered as a separate article.

Autonomy is considered a patient’s right to self-determination. Everyone has the right to decide what kind of care they should receive and to have those decisions respected. Respecting patient autonomy is one of the fundamental principles of medical ethics. 4 , 6 This principle emphasizes physicians’ protection of their patients’ right to self-determination, even for patients who have lost the ability to make decisions. This protection can be achieved by using advance directives (ADs) appropriately. 4 , 6

ADs are derived from the ethical principles of patient autonomy. They are oral and/or written instructions about the future medical care of a patient in the event he or she becomes unable to communicate, and loses the ability to make decisions for any reason. ADs completed by competent person ordinarily include living wills, health care proxies, and “do not resuscitate” (DNR) orders. 3 , 4 , 7 , 8 A living will is a written document in which a competent person provides instructions regarding health care preferences, and his or her preferences for medical interventions such as feeding tubes that can be applied to him or her in end-of-life care. A patient’s living will take effect when the patient loses his or her decision-making abilities. A health care proxy (also called health care agent or power of attorney for health care) is the person appointed by the patient to make decisions on the patient’s behalf when he or she loses the ability to make decision. A health care proxy is considered the legal representative of the patient in a situation of severe medical impairment. 4 , 7 , 8 The responsibility of the healthcare proxy is to decide what the patient would want, not what the proxy wants. 7 , 9

Up until age 18, the patient’s parents or legal guardians usually serve as their health care proxy. After the age of 18, they can legally appoint their own health care proxy. The proxies may be one of the family members or friends or another person. The proxies make decision about treatments, procedures, and life support. Even if their own wishes are different from the patient, the proxies must take into account the patient’s possible preferences, not their own or anyone else, when making decisions on behalf of the patient. 7 , 8 , 10

At the end of life, the priority of making decisions belongs to the patient. If the patient has lost the ability to make decisions, decisions are made according to the patient’s AD, if any. The proxy health care is second in decision-making on behalf of the patient. If no AD or proxy, the decision-making is up to the family members. If family members avoid making decisions, the healthcare team must make a decision. 7 , 8 , 10

ADs help ensure that patients receive the care they want and guide the patients’ family members in dealing with the decision-making burden. Another reason for ADs is to limit the use of expensive, invasive, and useless care not requested by patients. Researches show that ADs improve the quality of end-of-life care and reduce the burden of care without increasing mortality. 7 , 11

In many countries, the right of people to self-determination is a legal guarantee. Each patient’s “right to self-determination” requires informed consent in terms of medical intervention and treatment. A patient has both the “right to demand the termination of treatment” (e.g. the discontinuation of life support) and the “right to refuse treatment altogether”; the exercise of these rights is strictly dependent on the person. 4 , 5 AD can be updated yearly and/or prior to any hospitalization. 9

In many countries, the right of competent individuals to express their treatment preferences autonomously in end-of-life care should be met with ethical respect, taking into account the use of advanced treatments and the prognosis of their disease. However, this autonomy has some limitations. The decisions made by a patient should not harm him or her. It is important for healthcare providers to respect the autonomy of their patient and fulfill their duties to benefit their patients without harming them. 1 – 5 , 9

Beneficence requires physicians to defend the most useful intervention for a given patient. Often, patients’ wishes about end-of-life care are not expressed through ADs, and the patients’ health care providers and family members may not be aware of their wishes about end-of-life care. 2 , 9 , 10 If a patient is not capable of decision-making, or if the patient has not previously documented his or her wishes in the event he or she becomes terminally ill, the end-of-life decision is made by the patient’s physician as a result of consultations with the patient or the patient’s relatives or the patient’s health care proxy. 3 – 6 In this situation, the responsibility of the physician in the care of the dying patient should be to advocate the approaches that encourage the delivery of the best care available to the patient. 3

Nonmaleficence is the principle of refraining from causing unnecessary harm. This principle concerns a basic maxim of good medical care: Primum non nocere (i.e. first, do no harm). Although some of the medical interventions might cause pain or some harm, nonmaleficence refers to the moral justification behind why the harm is caused. Harm can be justified if the benefit of the medical intervention is greater than the harm to the patient and the intervention is not intended to harm the patient. 5 – 7 , 12

To comply with these principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, healthcare professionals need to know their roles and responsibilities in end-of-life care. 4 , 5

The ethical principle of justice is about ensuring a fair distribution of health resources and requires impartiality in the delivery of health services. 5 – 7 , 12 Medical resources are often limited and should, therefore, be distributed fairly and equally. There is already a need to evaluate the allocation of advanced medical therapy to avoid unnecessary use of limited resources. Healthcare providers have an ethical obligation to advocate for fair and appropriate treatment of patients at the end of life. This can be achieved through good education and knowledge of improved treatment outcomes. 4 – 7

Fidelity principle requires physicians to be honest with their dying patient about the patients’ prognosis and possible consequences of patients’ disease. 5 – 7 , 12 Truth telling is fundamental to respecting autonomy. Most patients want to have full knowledge of their disease and its possible consequences, but this desire may decrease as they approach the end of their life. Some patients may not want information about their disease. 2 , 5 Physicians should be skilled in determining their patients’ preferences for information and, honestly yet sensitively, provide their patients with as much accurate information as the patients want. Having effective patient-centered communication skills helps physicians learn and meet the demands of their patients. 5 , 13

Healthcare professionals, especially physicians, should provide all the information about their patients’ condition when appropriate. They have a duty to provide detailed information to patients and, if necessary, to the patients’ decision-makers about advanced medical treatments that can be used during end-of-life care. 4 , 13 They can perform their duties by providing their patients with detailed information about the benefits, limitations, and disadvantages of these treatments. Even if a patient has the autonomy to choose his or her treatment, the physician should explain the results of all therapeutic interventions. 2 – 5 If the patient insists on a treatment that will not be beneficial or will or just prolong her or his life, the physician can withdraw from the patient’s care by explaining why the treatment will not benefit the patient, the possible damage the physician may cause to the patient, and how the provision of the treatment will lead to the unnecessary use of resources. The physician also has the duty to protect the patient’s life, but this task should not be confused with the use of unnecessary resources, and the patient should not be injured further by continuing useless or futile medical treatments. 1 , 4 , 5 In other cases, the benefit to the patients is determined only on the basis of the patients’ subjective judgment of well-being. Medically futile treatments and interventions are those that are highly unlikely to benefit the patient. 9

Medical futility is defined as a clinical action serving no useful purpose in attaining a specified goal for a given patient. 14 Futile medical care is care provided to a patient, although there is no hope of any benefit to the patient. 4 As a general rule, patients should be involved in deciding whether care is futile. In rare cases, it may not be favorable for the patients to participate in this discussion. 2 , 9 Futile and expensive treatments in end-of-life care increase the cost of healthcare and promote inequality in healthcare. Advanced technologies do not promise cures. The use of these technologies can sometimes harm the patient rather than benefit. Therefore, physicians should certainly consider the ethical value of the autonomy of their patients or his or her patients’ proxies, but they should also discuss possible damage from treatments, and how the use of unnecessary resources leads to an increase in healthcare costs. Physicians do not have to apply to useless or futile treatment to patients. 3 , 9 , 10 , 14

Decision-making during end-of-life care

In the end-of-life care of a patient, the decision to implement practices to prolong the patient’s life or to comfort the patient may be difficult for the physician, patient, family members, or health care proxy. The following topics relate to some situations where difficulty in decision-making regarding end-of-life care is encountered: 9

• Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR);
• Mechanical ventilation (MV), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and mechanical circulatory support (MCS);
• Artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH);
• Terminal sedation;
• Withholding and withdrawing treatment;
• Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS).

Although CPR is valuable in the treatment of heart attacks and trauma, sometimes the use of CPR may not be appropriate for dying patients and may lead to complications and worsen the patients’ quality of life. For some terminally ill patients, CPR is an undesired intervention. The decision not to perform CPR on a dying patient can be difficult for healthcare personnel. The decision to administer CPR to a patient depends on many factors such as patient preferences, the estimated success rate, the risks of the procedure, and the perceived benefit. 4 , 12 , 15 A competent patient may not want to undergo CPR in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest. This decision is called the DNR decision. Despite this request, the patient’s family members may ask the physician to perform CPR. In this case, if the patient is conscious and has the ability to make decisions, the patient’s decision is taken into account. Physicians must learn the CPR demands of patients at risk of cardiopulmonary arrest. DNR decision can be considered for the following patients: 9 , 10 , 15 , 16

• Patients who may not benefit from CPR;
• Patients for whom CPR will cause permanent damage or loss of consciousness;
• Patients with poor quality of life who are unlikely to recover after CPR.

Approximately 75% of dying patients experience difficulty breathing or dyspnea. This feeling can be scary for patients and those who witness it. In end-of-life care, mechanical ventilation is applied not to prolong the lives of patients but to reduce their anxiety and to allow them to sleep better and eat more comfortably. 4 , 9

MV, ECMO, and MCS are supportive therapies. 17 – 20 The decisions to deactivate these devices are made in a similar way. The principle of autonomy is pivotal in evaluating the refusal of treatment and the permissibility of life-ending interventions. If MV, ECMO, or MCS support does not provide any benefit to the patient or no longer meets its intended goals, or if the outcome is not optimal, or the quality of life is not acceptable according to the patient’s or family’s wishes, support can be terminated. The timing of the device separation should be chosen by the patient’s family members. 17 – 20

Nutrition and hydration are essential parts of human flourishing. ANH involves giving food and water to patients who are unconscious or unable to swallow. 9 , 21 , 22

Artificial nutrition can be given through enteral feeding by tube or parenteral feeding. Nutrition and hydration decisions are among the most emotionally and ethically challenging decisions in end-of-life care. Many medical associations suggest that feeding and hydration treatments are forms of palliative care that meet basic human needs and must be given to patients at the end of life. 9 , 12 , 16 , 23 In 1990, the US Supreme Court noted that ANH is not different from other life-sustaining treatments. Although to do so speeds up death, competent adults may refuse artificial nutrition and hydration. ANH may improve the survival and quality of life of some patients such as extreme short bowel syndrome, bulbar amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and in the acute phase of some disease such as stroke or head injury. It may improve the nutritional status of patients with nutritional problems. However, the evidence for the benefits of ANH is insufficient. ANH is associated with considerable risks such as the aspiration pneumonia, diarrhea, and gastrointestinal discomfort. 23 , 24

In patients with advanced cancer, dehydration can cause symptoms such as fatigue, myoclonus, and delirium that impair quality of life, and sedation or agitation due to accumulation of active metabolites of opioids. However, the benefit of parenteral hydration in these patients is controversial. In a randomized controlled study, Bruera et al. 25 investigated the effect of parenteral hydration on quality of life and survival in cancer patients receiving hospice care. It was found that hydration at 1 L per day did not improve symptoms, quality of life, or survival compared with placebo. Johnston et al. conducted a study to determine factors associated with death after the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube was inserted. In the study, 43% of the patients died within a week. Of these patients, 70% died because of respiratory disease. The expert panel considered that PEG tube insertion is futile in only 19% of the patients. 26

For these reasons, the benefits and possible harms of the intervention should be explained to the patient or to the other decision-makers in detail before making the ANH decision. If a patient is incompetent, his or her proxy decision-maker can refuse artificial feeding and hydration on behalf of the patient. 9 , 21 – 23

Terminal sedation is a medical intervention used in patients at the end of life, usually as a last effort to relieve suffering when death is inevitable. Sedatives are used for terminal sedation. 5 , 9 People have some concerns about terminal sedation because the treatment of an unconscious patient is sensitive and risky. The purpose of terminal sedation is not to cause or accelerate death but to alleviate pain that is unresponsive to other means. There are four criteria for evaluating a patient for terminal sedation. 5 , 9 According to the Center for Bioethics at the University of Minnesota, four criteria are required for a patient to be considered for terminal sedation. 5 , 9

• The patient has a terminal illness.
• Severe symptoms are present, the symptoms are not responsive to treatment, and the symptoms are intolerable to the patient.
• A “do not resuscitate” order is in effect.
• Death is imminent (hours to days).

Some medical interventions in end-of-life care can save or prolong a patient’s life. However, patients and their family members are often faced with decisions about when and if these treatments should be used or if the treatments should be withdrawn. 2 , 9 The terms withholding and withdrawing can be confused with each other. Withdrawing is a term used to mean that a life-sustaining intervention presently being given is stopped. Withholding is a term used to mean that life-sustaining treatment is not initiated or increased. 21 , 22

The decision to withhold or withdraw interventions or treatment is one of the difficult decisions in end-of-life care that causes ethical dilemmas. If a patient and physician agree that there is no benefit in continuing an intervention, the right action is withholding or withdrawing the interventions. However, the physician must be skilled to manage this discussion sensitively. For this, physicians must have patient-centered and family-oriented communication skills. Respect for the autonomy of a patient seeking to continue or initiate treatment should be questioned when it would lead to enormous harm, the unnecessary or unequal distribution of resources, or action requiring the physician to act illegally. 23 In most countries, the legal opinion is that patients cannot seek treatment that is not in their best interest and, that physicians should not strive to protect life at all costs. However, if there is doubt, the decision must be in favor of preserving life. All healthcare professionals should be able to define an ethical approach to making decisions about withholding and withdrawing treatment that takes into account the law, government guidance, evidentiary base, and available resources. 14 , 22 , 23 , 27

Physicians must be aware of their patients’ capacity, beliefs, and preferences, as well as their clinical condition. 2 , 9

For many decades, euthanasia and PAS have been discussed in the context of terminal care in modern societies. The ethics and legality of euthanasia and PAS continue to be controversial. 28

Euthanasia is applied in two ways as active or passive euthanasia. In active euthanasia, a person (generally a physician) administers a medication, such as a sedative and neuromuscular relaxant, to intentionally end a patient’s life at the mentally competent patient’s explicit request. Passive euthanasia occurs when a patient suffers from an incurable disease and decides not to apply life-prolonging treatments, such as artificial nutrition or hydration. In PAS or physician-assisted death, a physician provides medication or a prescription to a patient at patient’s explicit request, with the understanding that the patient intends to use the medications to end his or her life. 28 – 30

From a global perspective, there are countries (or states) where euthanasia and PAS are accepted and legal and others where they are still offenses. In countries where euthanasia and PAS are legal, a physician has the right to refuse a patient’s request. 28

At the present time, active euthanasia is legal in five countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Canada, and Colombia), although the laws of these countries differ considerably regarding practices. Passive euthanasia is legal in 12 countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Canada, Colombia; and Mexico, Argentina, and Chile). PAS is legal in seven countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Switzerland, Germany, Finland, Canada, and Japan). In the United States, active euthanasia is illegal, but PAS is legal in 10 states (Oregon, Washington, Vermont, California, Colorado, Washington, DC, Hawaii, New Jersey, Maine, and Montana). 30 – 32 In countries other than Belgium and the Netherlands, the right to euthanasia applies to individuals aged 18 and older. There is no age limit for euthanasia requests in Belgium. In the Netherlands, people aged 12 and older who meet the necessary conditions can request euthanasia. 30 , 31

Ethical decision-making in different healthcare settings

Different difficulties can be experienced when applying ethical principles in different healthcare settings where end-of-life care is provided.

Emergency departments (EDs) are settings where healthcare services are provided to terminally ill and seriously ill patients, as well as potentially treatable patients. The goal of healthcare services provided in EDs is to refer patients to an appropriate service after treating urgent problems and stabilizing the patients. EDs are not suitable environments in which to provide a dignified death process. 33 , 34 However, family members of dying patients can bring the patients to an ED when they feel incapable of managing the death process at home. 33

In EDs, decisions often need to be made in a short time. Emergency physicians face numerous challenges when managing the clinical care of patients at the end of life. The most important ethical problem faced by emergency physicians in end-of-life care is making ethical decisions on issues such as whether to perform resuscitation and continue life-sustaining treatment in cases where the patients are not competent to make decisions. 33 , 34

Emergency physicians aim to support life through all possible means unless an AD requests otherwise. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine published a best-practice guide for end-of-life care for adult patients in EDs. In the aforementioned guidelines, it is stated that “the best treatment option is the one that provides the most general benefit and is the least restrictive for the patient’s future choices, and patients and their families should be involved, wherever possible, in end-of-life care decisions.” 35

If a patient is unable to make his or her own decisions about health care and has an AD or has appointed a health care proxy, the decisions are based on these documents. In cases where there is no AD or appointed health care proxy, family members must decide. Physicians and family members or health care proxies sometimes may not agree on medical decisions. In these cases, physicians should act according to the decision of ethics committees or the laws of the country. 34 , 35

In pediatric EDs, most terminal patients lack decision-making capacity due to their age and medical condition. Decisions for a child should be made in the context of the child’s best interests. A determination of “best interests” involves weighing the benefits, burdens, and risks of treatment to achieve the best possible outcome for the child or adolescent. 36 – 39

In most countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Turkey, legal and medical decision-makers are the parents or legal guardians of the children. Generally, physicians and decision-makers on behalf of the child agree on end-of-life care decisions. However, sometimes there is conflict over decisions. If a child’s physician thinks that the family or legal guardian’s decision is not the best decision for the child, the physician can apply to ethics committees or courts. 36 – 39

Most dying pediatric patients receive care in hospitals, often in pediatric ICUs. Decisions regarding the end-of-life care of children are made in accordance with ethical principles and the laws of the relevant country. 36 , 37

Children under the age of 18 years are not legally considered competent to make that decision. However, in some countries such as the United States, pregnant women, married women, children living independently and away from their families, and financially independent children are considered to be able to make their own decisions. It is accepted that children above the age of 6 should be informed about decisions regarding their end-of-life care and that their preferences should be taken into account in the decision-making process, even if they cannot make their own care decisions. 35 – 39

Pediatricians sometimes face ethical dilemmas and difficult decisions in the care of children at the end of life. 37 , 40 Often, parents agree with the advice of physicians. However, an ethical dilemma can arise when there is a disagreement about the care plan. Ethical dilemmas can arise in deciding whether to administer narcotics for the cessation and/or withdrawal of medical interventions and in decisions regarding the accuracy and administration of narcotics for pain and symptom management. Most difficult situations can be managed with effective communication within the medical team or between the team and the patient/family. 38 Providing families and children with clearly explained and understandable verbal and written information specific to the children’s individual circumstances and their management can enable the families and children to better assess the situation. When difficult decisions need to be made about end-of-life care, giving children and their parents or legal guardians sufficient time and opportunities for discussions can also help resolve problems. 39 – 41

Parental decisions are not absolute. In circumstances where a parent makes a decision that could potentially harm a child, the physician can seek assistance from the institution’s ethics committee if the physician is concerned that the decision is not in the best interests of the child. Going to court can be an option of last resort when the medical team believes that a family’s decisions are reaching the point of being harmful to the child. 15 , 37 , 38

Elderly individuals represent the most rapidly growing segment of the population. Many chronic, life-limiting diseases such as advanced cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, and organ or system failure occur in elderly individuals. In addition, many elderly people have cognitive impairments such as dementia that affect decision-making. 42 – 44

Several ethical issues arise in the care of elderly patients at the end of life. There is much common ground based on the application of the four major principles of medical ethics: nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice. The goal of end-of-life care for elderly people is to improve their quality of life, helping them cope with illness, disability, death, and an honorable death process. These goals should be achieved by considering these ethical principles. 41 – 44

Physicians who provide care to elderly patients with a terminal illness should discuss the goals of care with the patients and family surrogate decision-makers. This discussion provides valuable information to the physicians and the patients’ decision-makers about what kind of care the patients want to receive at the end of life and what kind of death they prefer. Physicians should be encouraged to advance life planning for their elderly patients. 4 , 41 – 44

There are some features of ethical decision-making in ICUs. It is important for physicians working in ICUs to distinguish between treatable patients and those in the terminal period. In the care of a dying patient in an ICU, after the emergency situations are resolved, the patient’s care should be reevaluated. In this planning, decisions are made for the next phase of care of the patient. Ideally, this decision-making process is a shared decision-making model in which the doctors and patient or the patient’s proxy share information with each other and participate jointly in the decision-making process. 45 – 48

It is very important to empower the family and, if possible, the patient to participate in this decision. The patient and his or her family members/care proxy should be assisted in making decisions through explanations of the patient’s condition, possible interventions, and the results of those interventions in clear and understandable language. The ethical principle of autonomy supports the legal requirement for informed consent. 45 – 48

Physicians working in ICUs may face ethical dilemmas in decision-making regarding end-of-life care. They should make end-of-life care decisions according to the basic ethical principles (autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice). 41 According to the autonomy principle, patients have decision-making priority. However, many critically ill patients in ICUs do not have the capacity to make decisions. In such cases, if the patients have an AD or health care proxy, decisions are made according to those documents. If there are no such documents, the decision-making falls on the patients’ family members. When there are disagreements between family members, a family meeting can be helpful. 46 – 48

Physicians sometimes think that the decisions made by family members are not the most appropriate decisions for the patients. In cases of conflict between intensive care teams and family members, assistance from institutional ethics committees may be sought. 48 In a study by Schneiderman et al., 49 it was found that ethical consultations help resolve conflicts.

Palliative care and hospice care

Most people express a preference for dying at home. 50 However, various factors may make it impossible to deliver quality end-of-life care in the patient’s home. In recent years, palliative care and hospice programs that provide care for terminal patients have gradually improved.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines palliative care as an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problem associated with life-threatening illness, through the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early identification and impeccable assessment and treatment of pain and other problems, physical, psychosocial and spiritual. 51

Palliative care is given by an interdisciplinary team. In its report “Dying in America,” the American Medical Institute (Institute of Medicine (IOM)) emphasizes that all physicians in disciplines and specialties that care for people with terminal disease should be competent in basic palliative care skills, such as person-centered and family-oriented communication skills, professional cooperation, and symptom management. 52

Palliative care, including hospice, as an established approach providing the best possible quality of life for people of all ages who have an advanced serious illness or are likely approaching death. The main goal is to prevent and relieve suffering, to improve quality of life for both the patient and the family. 43 , 52 Control of symptoms such as pain, shortness of breath, nausea, constipation, anorexia, insomnia, anxiety, depression, and confusion should be addressed with the patient and family. 53 , 54

Because psychological, spiritual, and social factors may all affect the perception of symptoms, psychosocial distress, spiritual issues, and practical needs should be handled appropriately according to the preferences of patients and their families. 55 In palliative care, the care plan is determined according to the goals of the patient and family with the guidance of the multidisciplinary health care team, and is regularly reviewed. 53 , 55

Hospice is an essential approach to address the palliative care needs of patients with limited life expectancy and their families. Hospices are an important component of palliative care. Hospice care focuses primarily on symptom control and psychologic and spiritual support for dying patients and their families. 43 , 52 Hospice teams’ goal is to make the patient as comfortable as possible in the end of life. Hospice can be provided in any setting, including patients’ homes, nursing homes, hospitals, and a separate hospice facility. 55 , 56 In addition to patient care, the interdisciplinary team provides support to the primary caregiver or family member who is responsible for the majority of the patient care. 55 , 57 Hospice team may provide emotional and spiritual support, social services, nutrition counseling, and grief counseling for the patients and their families.

Studies have shown that palliative care results in improved quality of life with less acute health care use and in moderately lower symptom burden compared to routine care. 58 A meta-analysis on hospice care have also shown that hospice care increases the quality of life and life expectancy for terminal ill patients. 59 Therefore, health care providers who will care for terminal patients must have primary palliative care skills. In addition, for all patients to benefit, hospice care must be covered by health insurance in all countries.

All ethical principles should also be taken into account in palliative care delivery. However, the most considered ethical principles are beneficence and nonmaleficence. Beneficence emphasizes on relieving the symptoms that impair the quality of life of a dying person. Nonmaleficence emphasizes on relieving the symptoms that can actually harm the patient. 56

In palliative care setting, the end-of-life decision mentioned above (CPR, MV, ANH, terminal sedation, withholding and withdrawing treatment) may need to be taken. The application of the ethical principles in palliative decision-making is required to achieve a comfortable end-of-life period for patients. 53 , 56

The goal of end-of-life care is to prevent or relieve suffering as much as possible while respecting the desires of dying patients. However, physicians face many ethical challenges in end-of-life care. Since the decisions to be made may concern patients’ family members and society as well as the patients, it is important to protect the rights, dignity, and vigor of all parties involved in the clinical ethical decision-making process. Open communication and shared decision-making among health care providers, patients, and families would avoid many of the ethical dilemmas at end-of-life care.

Limitations

There are different beliefs, traditions, and legal regulations that affect the application of ethical principles in different societies. This article discusses universal ethical principles accepted in end-of-life care; however, the application of ethical principles in different societies is not mentioned. In addition, the role of different healthcare professionals in end-of-life care has not been discussed.

Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of 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

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]

The Ethics of Euthanasia

Malleeka Suy | SQ Blogger | SQ Online (2021-2022)

Picture t his: It is the year 3020, and the Martian soil you have been drilling into has finally worked out. Colonizing Mars is taking shape, and soon your family can permanently live on this rusty, rocky planet. However, the effects of progress don’t go unnoticed; every time you move, your skin screams in pain. Everything you once loved doing has lost its appeal. Would you take death in your own hands or live until a painful end?

This moral dilemma seems straight out of a science-fiction novel for most, but euthanasia is a legitimate deliberation for patients with terminal and mental illnesses who deem their lives too painful to live on. It is a practice that is still heavily debated in modern bioethics. Among many definitions, the American Medical Association defines euthanasia as the administration of a lethal agent by a medical professional to a patient to relieve their intolerable or incurable suffering.

Although euthanasia is not a new scientific process, as it has been practiced since the time of the ancient Greeks more than three thousand years ago, it wasn’t generally accepted by Western medicine until recently. The Netherlands was the first country to allow legal euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2002, totaling 1.7-2.8% of total deaths. Euthanasia is generally illegal in the United States, but in a nationwide 2017 American poll , 73% of the public were in favor of euthanasia, and 57% said euthanasia is morally acceptable. These numbers are nearly double the initial poll in 1947. If I had to guess why, it may be partly because of progressive exposure to mental health and its effects. This may have allowed people to understand and empathize with the circumstances and support what euthanasia stands for: a release from an unbearable life.

Euthanasia is especially controversial among general society and the bioethical community. One main argument for the support of euthanasia is grounded in personal autonomy–our ability to act independently– since living life is about minimizing physical pain and maximizing dignity and control . This idea is rooted in ancient times when physicians considered dying with peace and dignity a human right. An article from Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy regards autonomy as self-determination, so choices about how and when people die is them taking responsibility for their lives. Terminally ill patients in Oregon mentioned how they chose euthanasia because their condition stripped them of their independence and ability to engage in activities that gave their life meaning. After all, what is the meaning of life if we cannot live it?

Another article by the Linacre Quarterly highlights how the ethics of compassion justify the use of euthanasia. From a humanitarian standpoint, we can show compassion by suffering and sympathizing with patients and respecting their wishes of euthanasia as their “remedy.” Kenneth L. Vaux, a consultant in medical ethics, notes in his article that physicians would give a lethal dose to their loved ones out of love if they were dying and suffering, so he finds it “strange and hypocritical” that doctors cannot legally do so for their patients. He claims that “we have lost empathy, sympathy, and the covenant of care with those who have entrusted their lives to us because they believe we embody those very qualities.” Vaux also asks: “Having barred the door to Death, are we not then obliged at some point to open it?” He suggests that since doctors bring life into the world every day, consensually ending a patient’s life for their benefit should be no different.

Despite popular social support, there are many arguments against euthanasia as well–the most popular being religion. Several faiths, such as Christianity, see euthanasia as a form of murder and find it to be morally unacceptable because it may weaken society’s respect for the sanctity of life. Religious groups actively argue against euthanasia, and for this reason, euthanasia became a debate of preservation and purity of life.

Even though medicine is rooted in science, some physicians also use religion as justification against practicing euthanasia. Contrary to public British opinion, studies show that most UK doctors do not support legislation permitting euthanasia due to their religiosity or faith, and less than a quarter of doctors would be willing to practice euthanasia if it became legal.

Physicians also have a professional obligation to fulfill that becomes morally blurred with euthanasia. For more than 2,500 years, doctors have taken the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm and treat those under their care. Does bringing death by euthanasia violate the Hippocratic Oath, or is it in line with a doctor’s mission? Would acting under Hippocrates then make a doctor a hypocrite?

Because of this subjectivity, doctors sometimes feel uncertain about administering euthanasia. Even if a patient is under a lot of pain and medication, how can doctors be sure that their decision was made rationally? In a Dutch article , an experienced psychiatrist dealing with a patient’s invisible suffering made him uncertain about assessing how deeply rooted their suffering really was, and therefore how moral it would be to allow euthanasia to happen. The fickle nature of the human mind makes many physicians and ethicists question whether or not euthanasia should be a normal practice.

Physicians often have their own reservations about euthanasia and how they cope with patients who wish for it. They frequently feel pressured by the patient or the patient’s relatives to perform euthanasia. A 2011 survey among Dutch physicians also found that 86% of physicians dread the emotional burden of performing euthanasia. One physician recounts how a patient told them, “If you won’t perform euthanasia, I might go to a railway line or climb a high building.” This form of blackmail can lead to dangerous expectations, where future normativity of the practice is anticipated or even praised.

Instead of placing the burden on doctors, what if the government or even robots could control euthanasia? Although this faceless jurisdiction seems like a good solution, critics argue that euthanasia would be normalized and twisted for eugenic purposes, adding to the nightmare of AI domination and impeding the sanctity and preciousness of life. These speculations seem inconceivable, but history has unfortunately seen it happen, such as in Hitler’s Germany, where Aktion T4, a Euthanasia Program systematically murdered patients with disabilities to restore the “integrity” of the German nation, thrived. Perhaps then a grimmer alternative to the use of euthanasia is the elimination of incurable, disabled, or elderly patients. Mechanization of euthanasia would also impact the patient and the medical profession, both in what it means to be human and obeying the Hippocratic Oath. Routinization of the practice could also increase the desires of people’s wishes to end their lives, whether individually justified or not.

References:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2532018

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/#MoraCaseForVoluEuth

http://www.cirugiaycirujanos.com/frame_esp.php?id=308

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885392414003066?via%3Dihub

https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-euthanasia#making-a-decision

https://livinganddyingwell.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Redefining-Physicians-Role-in-Assisted-Dying.pdf

https://shibbolethsp.jstor.org/start?entityID=urn%3Amace%3Aincommon%3Aucsd.edu&dest=

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3561966&site=jstor

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0269216310397688

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/182951#some-statistics

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269216310397688

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMclde1310667

https://medicine.missouri.edu/centers-institutes-labs/health-ethics/faq/euthanasia

https://news.gallup.com/poll/211928/majority-americans-remain-supportive-euthanasia.aspx

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/euthanasia

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21145197/

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.04.016

https://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/gjhs/article/view/19405/13366

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/euthanasia-program

The Ethical and Legal Implications of Euthanasia

Generally, the topic of euthanasia has resulted in hot debates among all stakeholders, including healthcare professionals and legal experts, due to the ethical and legal issues associated with the topic. It affects both patients and their healthcare providers. Over the years, the debate on euthanasia has focused on suffering patients with terminal illnesses. However, the topic has extended to include even patients with mental illnesses like depression. Therefore, it is appropriate to look at the controversy surrounding euthanasia in a recent case study. Euthanasia is a controversial topic that requires further inquiry to fully understand different opinions offered by the opposing sides and the ethical implications associated with it.

Recent Case Study

The case published in the Catholic Herald involves a 29-year-old woman who underwent euthanasia following a series of mental illnesses. According to the author, despite being physically fit, the woman was given a lethal injection, having been granted her wish to die by the court after eight years of legal battles. In her argument, the woman claimed she had experienced extreme bouts of depression that had made her life intolerable. The case raised concerns among various stakeholders, including politicians who lamented how dangerous euthanasia could be.

Ethical Issues Involved in the Case Study

Generally, the case study raises various ethical dilemmas related to euthanasia, including when it is justifiable to end one’s life. In addition, the topic also opens up a whole discussion on the limitations of patients’ autonomy and the ethical responsibilities of healthcare professionals, as highlighted in the bioethical principles of beneficence and maleficence. Concerning autonomy, questions are raised regarding the patient’s capability to understand the decision that she was making. With superior knowledge and training, the physician is best positioned to help make an ethical decision that is in the patient’s best interest to protect patients from irresponsible choices. For patients to make an autonomous decision, they should be mentally capable of comprehending the information of the decision. In the case study, the patient has a mental health condition. Hence, her ability to make rational decisions is in question.

The Context of Euthanasia

The case study highlights euthanasia, particularly among patients with mental conditions such as depression. Historically, numerous attempts have been made to legalize euthanasia, but minimal success has occurred. The euthanasia discussion in psychiatry was awakened after the Nazi Holocaust when thousands of psychiatric patients were gassed or poisoned to death under the ‘euthanasia program’. According to Felder, the Nazi euthanasia program was used by scientists, mainly physicians, to conduct medical experiments. It is out of the scientific experiments of the Nazi physicians that ‘The Nuremberg Code’ was established to guide future experiments on human subjects.

Additionally, politicians have had their hand in the matter by sponsoring bills to legalize the act, with some opposing such attempts and publicly making their views known. From a social perspective, euthanasia has continued to be controversial, with many societies coming up to air their opinion. In the traditional Christian context and culture, euthanasia is viewed as morally unacceptable due to human life’s sacred nature. However, other social groups support euthanasia with the thought of extending dignity to death, such as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. As such, there is no single available societal perspective regarding the issue of euthanasia. Hence, it is important to society as it touches on the critical matters of life and death.

The Differing Perspectives on Euthanasia

The individuals and societies in support of euthanasia have always centered their opinion on patient suffering. They argue that patients in the terminal stages of illness experience excruciating pain and have poor wound healing, poor social interactions, and many other aspects of physical suffering. According to the proponents, euthanasia is a more merciful response to relieve this suffering, especially where the quality of life is jeopardized. Among the patients with mental illnesses, the proponents argue that some mental conditions, including severe depression, induce intense suffering and are unresponsive to treatment. Additionally, the proponents note that since the patients request most cases of euthanasia, it is a way for physicians to show respect for personal autonomy. Thus, to the proponents, euthanasia relieves undue suffering and is in harmony with respect for autonomy and the individual’s right to a dignified death.

Contrary to the proponents’ arguments, the opponents base their argument on the intrinsic wrongness of killing, professional integrity, and the possibility of potential abuse. According to Naga and Mrayyan, willingly ending one’s life is inconsistent with human rights, and alternatives should be sought to relieve the patient’s suffering and improve their quality of life. Furthermore, Naga and Mrayyan note that administering lethal substances by physicians to end life is unethical according to guiding medical ethical practices, especially the Hippocratic Oath that restricts physicians from administering such substances to their patients or aiding their patients to die. They also note that legalizing euthanasia could lead to its potential abuse and a slippery slope where individuals will use it to escape chronic but manageable medical conditions.

Evaluation of the Arguments and Their Ethical Implications

The arguments presented by both the proponents and the opponents seem to be entirely influenced by one’s culture, moral philosophy, and personal experiences. Those opposed to euthanasia seem to be influenced by their religious cultures. Specifically, Christian teachings view life as sacred and state it should not be terminated prematurely at any cost. On the other hand, the proponents seem to subscribe to the Stoic philosophy that has always defended suicide as a reasonable departure from life, especially when intense suffering is involved. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that personal life experiences with suffering may make one choose to end one’s life. For example, seeing a cancer patient suffer may make individuals consider euthanasia if diagnosed with a similar terminal disease, as they will not want to experience the same ordeal.

While both the proponents and those opposed to euthanasia have valid arguments, myriads of ethical issues surround each side’s perspective. It is indeed true that certain illnesses, including mental conditions, lead to severe suffering and reduced quality of life. However, ethical issues arise regarding the ability of the patients requesting euthanasia to make autonomous decisions. For example, Appelbaum notes that it is common for depressed patients to reject treatment and even request death, yet change their decision once the depression is resolved. Accordingly, this raises the ethical question concerning the impact of the mental illness itself on the patient’s decision-making. It has also been observed that most patients are only resistant to one form of treatment and that other options should be tried to relieve their suffering.

Furthermore, it is noted that the right to autonomy is not always absolute and that physicians have the legal and ethical responsibility to override the patient’s decisions and continue pursuing alternative treatment in response to the patient’s symptoms and request a dignified death. Thus, the argument regarding patients’ autonomy to end their lives is weak. On the other hand, the opponents’ unethical medical practice mainly touches on physicians’ ethical responsibilities to act in good faith and protect their patients from harm. In line with non-maleficence and beneficence principles, physicians cannot administer lethal dosages to their patients as it causes more harm than good. Additionally, the claim of potential abuse if euthanasia is legalized, holds grounds owing to several reported cases, including ones with mental illnesses, where euthanasia has been performed without following due process in countries where it is legalized. Thus, the ethical questions raised by those opposed to euthanasia regarding non-maleficence, benevolence, and potential abuse are strongly supported by evidence.

Personal Perspective on Euthanasia

The issue of euthanasia among depressed patients will continue to dominate medical discussions. Subjectively, the opponents of euthanasia seem to offer a strong argument. Notably, depression can be treated just like other mental conditions, and symptoms can be controlled where treatment is impossible. Patient autonomy among psychiatric patients is in question. Mental illnesses tend to affect one’s way of thinking, and suicidal ideations are common phenomena among depressed patients. I have dealt with patients who have changed their stance on ‘mercy killing’ after a series of professional counseling sessions and continued treatment. Thinking about these experiences concerning my patients and the ethical dilemmas related to euthanasia makes me view it as an undesirable event in medical practice that I will not want to engage in.

The topic of euthanasia is controversial based on the numerous arguments aired by those in its support and those who are against it. The case study published in the Catholic Herald offers a good scenario through which the effects of euthanasia can be accessed and its ethical implications reviewed. While the Pro-euthanasia argument is based on the need to relieve undue suffering, respect autonomy, and grant the right to a dignified death, the opponents have emphasized the intrinsic wrongness of killing, professional integrity, and the possibility of a “slippery slope”. Overall, the ethical issues addressed autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence. Subjectively, the ethical questions touching upon professional integrity, especially the need to observe non-maleficence and doing good, are strong enough to make me offer my support against euthanasia.

📎 References:

1. Appelbaum, P. S. (2017). Should mental disorders be a basis for physician-assisted death? Law & Psychiatry, 68(4), 315-317. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201700013 2. Beauchamp, T. L. (2016) Principlism in bioethics. In P. Serna & J. A. Seoane (Eds.), Bioethical decision making and argumentation (pp. 1-16). New York, NY: Springer. 3. Caldwell, S. (2018, February 1). Dutch doctors euthanize a 29-year old woman with depression. Catholic Herald. 4. Felder, B. M. (2013). “Euthanasia,” human experiments, and psychiatry in Nazi-occupied Lithuania, 1941-1944. Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 27(2), 242-275. https://doi.org/10.1093/hgs/dct025 5. Kim, S. Y., De Vries, R. G., & Peteet, J. R. (2016). Euthanasia and assisted suicide of patients with psychiatric disorders in the Netherlands 2011 to 2014. JAMA Psychiatry, 73(4), 362-368. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.2887 6. Naga, B. S. B., & Mrayyan, M. T. (2013). Legal and ethical issues of euthanasia: Argumentative essay. Middle East Journal of Nursing, 7(5), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.5742/MEJN.2013.75330 7. Nunes R., & Rego, G. (2016.) Euthanasia: A challenge to medical ethics. Journal of Clinical Research & Bioethics, 7(4), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9627.1000282 8. Tomasini, F. (2014). Stoic defence of physician-assisted suicide. Acta Bioethica, 20(1), 99-108. Retrieved from https://scielo.conicyt.cl/pdf/abioeth/v20n1/art11.pdf

Table of content

Crafted with Care:

Nursing Essays!

Precision, Passion, & Professionalism in Every Page.

158 Euthanasia Topics & Essay Examples

If you’re writing a euthanasia essay, questions and topics on the subject can be tricky to find. Not with our list!

• 📑 Aspects to Cover in a Euthanasia Essay

🏆 Best Euthanasia Essay Examples & Topics

💡 clever euthanasia titles, 🎓 simple & easy euthanasia essay titles, ✅ most interesting euthanasia topics to write about, ❓ euthanasia essay questions.

Our experts have prepared a variety of ideas for your paper or speech. In the article below, find original euthanasia research questions and essay titles. And good luck with your assignment!

📑 Aspects to Cover in an Euthanasia Essay

Euthanasia is the process of intentional life ending. Its goal is to stop patients’ suffering and pain. In today’s world, euthanasia is a debatable topic, and there are many questions about it.

Euthanasia essays can help students to raise awareness of the process and its aspects. That is why it is crucial to research this issue and write papers on it.

You can discuss various problems in your essay on euthanasia, as there is a broad variety of related issues. You can choose the one you are the most concerned about, search for euthanasia essay questions online or consult your professor.

Here are some examples of euthanasia essay topics and titles we can suggest:

• The benefits and disadvantages of a physician-assisted suicide
• Ethical dilemmas associated with euthanasia
• An individual’s right to die
• Euthanasia as one of the most debatable topics in today’s society
• The ethical dilemma around euthanasia
• The ethics associated with voluntary euthanasia
• Can euthanasia be considered murder?
• Euthanasia debate: Should the government legalize this procedure?
• The legality of physician-assisted suicide in today’s society

Once you have selected one of the euthanasia essay titles, you can start working on your paper. Here are some important aspects to cover:

Start from developing a solid euthanasia essay thesis. You should state the main idea of your paper and your primary argument clearly. A thesis statement can look like this: Euthanasia is beneficial for patients because it prevents them from suffering. Euthanasia can be equal to murder.

• Remember to include a definition of euthanasia and related terms, such as physician-assisted suicide. Your audience should understand what you are talking about in the essay.
• Do not forget to include the existing evidence on the issue. For instance, you can research euthanasia in different countries, the debates around its legalization, and all other aspects related to the problem. Support your claims with facts and cite your sources correctly.
• Legal and ethical questions are some of the most significant aspects you should cover in the essay. Discuss the potential benefits and disadvantages of the procedure, as well as its impact on patients’ families and medical professionals.
• If you are writing an opinion paper, do not forget to state your opinion clearly. Include relevant experience, if possible (for example, if you work at a hospital and patients have asked you about the procedure). Have you met people who could have benefited from euthanasia? Include their stories, if applicable.
• Do not forget to cover the legal aspects of euthanasia in your state. Is it legal to perform some form of euthanasia where you live or work? Do you think it is beneficial for the patients?
• Remember to look at the grading rubric to see what other aspects you should cover in your paper. For example, your professor may want you to state a counter-argument and include a refutation paragraph. Make sure that you follow all of your instructor’s requirements.
• If you are not sure that you have covered all the necessary questions related to your issue, check out related articles and analyze the authors’ arguments. Avoid copying other people’s work and only use it as an inspiration.

Please find our free samples below with the best ideas for your work!

• Euthanasia: Advantages and Disadvantages The most heavily criticized of all such similar actions is involuntary euthanasia which bears the brunt of all severe protests against the issue, with involuntary euthanasia being dubbed as the deprivation of an individual of […]
• Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia Due to the sensitivity of the issue, laws that will protect the rights of both the patient and the physicians who practice euthanasia should be put in place.
• Consequentialism: Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide People against euthanasia view the consequences of legalization as a gateway to other unethical practices being accepted, which is a slippery slope that could lead to adverse consequences to the fundamental principles and values of […]
• An Argument Against Euthanasia 5 Generally, it is contrary to the duty of the subject of euthanasia and that of those who intend to perform the mercy killing to take one’s life based on their own assessment of the […]
• The Morality of Euthanasia In the meantime the medication and the doctors are not trivial anymore in stopping the pain and the victim despite all the sufferings, he or she is in a vegetative state and there is nothing […]
• Euthanasia as Self-Termination Velleman believes that a person should not have the right to end their life as it can make other people suffer, but there is an objection to his opinion related to that person’s own pain.
• Euthanasia: Legalisation of a Mercy Killing The fact that the minority of countries and only several states in the US accept euthanasia proves that today people are still not ready to accept it as a mercy.
• Why Active Euthanasia is Morally Wrong The issue of active euthanasia has come to the attention of the public over the past decades as more people demand for the right to be assisted to die.
• Euthanasia for Terminally Ill People: Pros & Cons Despite the fact that euthanasia causes a lot of controversy, every person should have the right to end suffering. Permission of euthanasia is the realization of a person’s right to dispose of their body.
• David Velleman’s Views on Euthanasia Velleman is correct in his conviction that in this case, the patient’s decision will be the outcome of a federal right to die; the situation with euthanasia is common to that of abortion with the […]
• Euthanasia in Christian Spirituality and Ethics By examining Christian’s views on the fallenness of the world, the hope of resurrection, and the value of a person’s life, one can see that euthanasia is not a morally acceptable option for a Christian […]
• Euthanasia: Right to Live or Right to Die 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.
• The Death Definition and the Need for Euthanasia If the concept of the soul is to be believed in, then one’s death is simply a process that detaches the soul from the body.
• Euthanasia as a Polarizing Issue The example of a plethora of countries shows that the inclusion of assisted suicide is not detrimental to the broad society.
• Rachel’s Stance on Euthanasia: Passive and Active Killing Despite the appealing nature of Rachel’s argument, his claims of equity of killing and letting a person die are not ethically right. A major distinction between killing and witnessing death is the level of responsibility […]
• Analysis of Ethical Dilemma: Euthanasia One of these is the right to live, which includes much more than the ability to simply exist, and suggests an adherence to a minimum of quality and self-determination.
• Euthanasia-Related Ethical and Legal Issues There are no discussions about whether the person has the right to commit suicide or not because most individuals agree that it is the decision of the adult person who can dispose of their life.
• Euthanasia: Legal Prohibitions and Permits In addition, it is necessary to take into account the right of a suffering person to get rid of the suffering of loved ones.
• Euthanasia: Why Is It Such a Big Problem? Thus, according to the utilitarian viewpoint, there is no problem with euthanasia as along as it is better for the patient. Who is it to decide what is better for the patient?
• Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide as a Current Issue in Nursing Nowadays, even in nations where the procedure of euthanasia and assisted suicide has been legal for decades, this topic continues to be controversial due to ethical and policy issues. However, in the light of the […]
• Euthanasia and Its Main Advantages However, after realizing the condition is untreatable and having the consent of both the sick person and the relatives, undertaking assisted suicide will enable the patient to evade extreme suffering.
• Euthanasia: Nurses’ Attitudes Towards Death The weakest part of the article is that most of the participants did not clearly define the concept of euthanasia, which casts doubt on the reliability of the sampled data.
• Right to Die With Euthanasia Methods The possible answer is to develop the functionality of both ordinary public hospitals and hospices that are located in their departments. In addition, it is critical to specify the desirable methods of euthanasia.
• “Active and Passive Euthanasia” by James Rachels The second issue about euthanasia that Rachels raises is the difference between killing and allowing one to die. For Rachels, it is necessary to emphasize that killing is sometimes even more humane than allowing one […]
• Arguments Against Legalization of Euthanasia Although the PAS/E should be offered voluntarily to a patient, in some cases it is offered in secret by physicians to patients who are perceived to be dying.
• Euthanasia: The Terri Schiavo Case Analysis The long-term judicial resolution of the Terri Schiavo case was related to the bioethical problem of the humanity of euthanasia, which had many opponents and supporters.
• Can Euthanasia Be Considered Ethical Consequently, from this perspective, the act of euthanasia would be regarded as violence to someone else’s life. As a result, euthanasia is likely to be considered unethical from the point of view of any of […]
• “Active and Passive Euthanasia” and “Sexual Morality” According to Scruton, morality is a constraint upon reasons for action and a normal consequence of the possession of a first-person perspective. For Scruton, sexual morality includes the condemnation of lust and perversion that is, […]
• Nursing Role in Euthanasia Decision and Procedures The weakest point is the lack of analysis of other factors’ influence on the process of euthanasia. The researchers discovered that the role of nurses in euthanasia is underestimated.
• Aspects of Nursing and Euthanasia The subject of the research by Monteverde was to ask people who work in the medical sphere and face the necessity for euthanasia, whether they are for or against it, and why.
• Pros and Cons of Euthanasia from an Ethical Perspective Primarily, this is apparent on American soil, in which some states decriminalized euthanasia, although the supreme court maintained that there is no law that legalized the practice nor the ban of the mentioned act.
• Euthanasia in the Context of Christianity The questions addressed in the paper include the notions of fall and resurrection as means of interpreting suffering, the Christian stance on the value of human life and euthanasia, and the discussion of possible solutions […]
• Nursing Practice and Euthanasia’s Ethical Issues Effective healthcare management is the involvement of all stakeholders, such as CMS, and the federal government in the decision-making process to improve the sustainable growth in the effectiveness of Medicaid.
• Counseling on Euthanasia and End-of-Life Decision The immediate dynamic killing is a clinical demonstration coordinated to the hardship of life, while a doctor helped self-destruction is a demonstration of the doctor where he gives the patient a medicament for taking life.
• Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Articles According to the methods of application, there are two main types of euthanasia: “active”, which consists in performing certain actions to accelerate the death of a hopelessly ill person, and “passive”, the meaning of which […]
• Legal and Ethical Issues of Euthanasia Davis argues that there exists a challenge on how to establish a consensus in the competing views regarding the desire for patients to have the choice to die with dignity while under pain and distress […]
• Debates on Euthanasia – Opposes the Use Therefore, the legal system should work hand in hand with healthcare shareholders in distinguishing the limits between the patients’ rights and the physicians’ accountability based on the possible life-limiting treatment choices.
• Active Euthanasia: Ethical Dilema In case of active euthanasia, it is the patient who requests the medical practitioner to end his or her life and the former abides by the wish.
• Euthanasia: Every For and Against Jane L Givens and Susan L Mitchell “Concerns about End-of-Life Care and Support for Euthanasia” Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Article in Press FOR The authors state socio-demographic characteristics of the people are the […]
• Pro Euthanasia in the United States The discussions of euthanasia implementation in the United States began in the early 19th century after the development of ether, which was applied to pain-relieving.
• The Euthanasia in Humans The moral and ethical aspects of medical practice include not only the features of interaction with patients and other interested parties but also deeper nuances. In particular, one of the controversial and acute topics is euthanasia and its acceptability from different perspectives, including both patients’ and healthcare employees’ positions. In addition, religious issues are involved, […]
• Euthanasia: Philosophical Issues at Stake in Rodriguez I will argue that the prohibition of euthanasia contradicts utilitarianism and the principle of quality of life in particular, and can hardly be supported by paternalism since the ban does not benefit an individual’s life.
• “Euthanasia Reconsidered” by Deagle In more detail, there is a clearly discernible introduction that provides the background to the topic, introduces the thesis statement, and state the opinion of the author of the topic discussed.
• Euthanasia Movement in Modern America Euthanasia movements in modern America perfected the art of rhetoric in their communication and this worked for them in terms of winning the heart of the public.
• Euthanasia: The Issue of Medical Ethics In this respect, the position of a physician under the strain of extreme circumstances should be weighed about the value of compassion.
• The Problem of Euthanasia in Animal Shelters Animal shelters are forced to euthanize animals for a number of reasons which includes: Lack of funds to treat sick animals, overcrowding as a result of the increased number of animals brought in by owners […]
• Euthanasia: Ethical Debates When a patient is in the final stage of life, sometimes, the disease or the conditions of the patient, cause a lot of physical and psychological suffering.
• Life-Span Development: Terri Schiavo’s Euthanasia Case Euthanasia is the process of stopping the medical maintenance of a patient’s life when the patient/herself does not want to suffer anymore and the doctors are sure that no improvements in the patient’s condition are […]
• Euthanasia and Other Life Termination Options However, there is a strong case for helping terminally ill patients spend the remainder of their lives with care provided by the medical fraternity and with support from the state and insurance companies. And in […]
• The Problem of Euthanasia Nevertheless, we must recognize that the interruption of life, alone or with the help of doctors, is contrary to one of the basic tenets of Christianity: the more people suffer on earth, the easier it […]
• Euthanasia: A Legalized Right to Die Nothing could be further from the intent of those who favor a limited reconsideration of public policy in the areas of assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia.
• Euthanasia and Suicide Issues in Christian Ethics Based on the two perceptions of euthanasia, theological and professional, it is valid to say that assisted suicide is probably not the best way out.
• Euthanasia. Arguments of Opponents The request of the patient to relieve them from Karma and sufferings that is clarification and healing, nobody gives the right to break life of a physical body.
• Attitudes Related to Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Among Terminally Ill Patients Consequently, the outlined safeguard becomes the first line of defense in making sure that only the right individuals with chronic and incurable medical conditions benefit from assisted death.
• Active Euthanasia Legalization Controversy While many people present the notions of medical ethics, the right to life, and the availability of palliative care to oppose active euthanasia, there are those who support it since it is evidence-based in nature […]
• Dying With Dignity: Euthanasia Debate On the other hand, the supporters of the law claim that assisted death is not a suicide, and it allows more end-of-life options for terminally ill patients. The majority of people are concerned with control […]
• Euthanasia Legalization as an Unethical Practice The decision to legalize euthanasia is an idea that societies should ignore since it places many global citizens at risk, fails to provide adequate safeguards, diminishes social values, and undermines the teachings of Islam.
• The Ethics of Euthanasia In the analysis of the claims in favor and against euthanasia, the cause and effect relationships between the factors affecting the choice of euthanasia should be established.
• Controversial Issues of Euthanasia Decision We now had to make this difficult decision to end his life and relieve him of all the pain that he was undergoing.
• Confronting Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia It was because of that pain that led my mother and I to bring her to a Chinese holistic healer who treated her with some sort of secret Chinese medical injection.
• Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Rights in Canada The article asserts that in the year 1993, Rodriquez petitioned in vain to the Supreme Court of Canada to allow her to undertake euthanasia. In the article, the author asserts that, in the year 1993, […]
• Euthanasia: “Being a Burden” by Martin Gunderson As it was implied in the Introduction, in his article, Gunderson argues in favor of the idea that it is utterly inappropriate to even consider the legalization of voluntary euthanasia, due to a number of […]
• Euthanasia: Fighting for the Right Cause Sommerville is a renowned Samuel Gale Professor of Law at the McGill University in Montreal, the Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, and the Founding Director of the Center for Medicine, Ethics, and Law. The […]
• Euthanasia as a Way of Painless Termination of Life The introduction of the Hippocratic School led to the abolishment of the practice. According to the approach, taking human life is unethical and violation of the core right to life.
• Euthanasia and Other Life-Destroying Procedures From this perspective, it is unethical to decide in favor of an end-of-life procedure on the condition that there are at least minimal chances for a patient’s survival.
• Ethics of Euthanasia and Pain-Relieving This leads to the historical argument that voluntary euthanasia is often the beginning of a slippery slope that gives rise to unintentional euthanasia and the murder of people who are unwanted in society.
• Euthanasia Legalization: Public Policy Debates The requirements of physicians to perform euthanasia and consideration of the second opinion eliminate the violation of legal and ethical stipulations, and thus, control the performance of euthanasia in health care environment. Opponents of euthanasia […]
• Euthanasia: Moral Rationalist View Human beings rely on the available evidence to generate beliefs about life and goals that should be attained, and thus the use of reason leads to success in these objectives.
• Euthanasia: Is It Worth the Fuss? In order to grasp the gist of the deliberations in this essay, it is important to first apprehend what the term euthanasia means and bring this meaning in the context of this essay.
• Active and Passive Euthanasia Analysis and Its Concept The issue of morality is one of the things that have to be mentioned when discussing the concept of euthanasia. In this instance, both the patient and the doctor know that there is no cure […]
• Euthanasia in Today’s Society Euthanasia is the deliberate termination of life with the intention of relieving a patient from pain and suffering. If the prognosis of a patient is gloomy, medical care providers may find it more compassionate to […]
• When Ethics and Euthanasia Conflict? The main aim is to reduce the lifetime of a patient who is terminally ill. There is a deep mistrust of the motivations that fuel euthanasia.
• Religions Views on Euthanasia This essay highlights religious thoughts with regard to the whole issue of euthanasia, bringing into focus the extent to which our society has been influenced by courtesy of the Dr.
• Euthanasia as the Key Controversy of the XXI Century The fact that in the present-day society, human life is put at the top of the entire list of values is a major achievement of the civilization and the fact that the current society is […]
• Euthanasia: Is It the Best Solution? In twentieth century, various agencies erupted to address the practice of euthanasia such as Voluntary Euthanasia Legislation Society in 1935, which was advocating for its legalization in London and the National Society for the Legalization […]
• Legalizing Euthanasia The are supporters of the idea that only God has the right to take human’s life, on the other hand, the sufferings of the person may be unbearable and they may ask for euthanasia to […]
• A New Fight to Legalize Euthanasia Before settling down on the conclusion of the need to adopt the practice of euthanasia in our state, it is important to visit some basic aspects that are very key in the issue of euthanasia.
• The Ethics of Active Euthanasia In support of the euthanasia action, the argument is that there are circumstances when the rule of natural life can be violated.
• Advantages and Disadvantages of Euthanasia in Modern Society In its turn, this points out to the fact that, in the field of health care, the notion of medicinal compassion organically derives out of the notion of scientific progress, and not out of the […]
• Is Euthanasia a Morally Wrong Choice for Terminal Patients? It is imperative to note that for both the opponents and proponents of euthanasia, the quality of life is usually the focal point, even though there is no agreement on the criteria of defining quality […]
• The Right to Life and Active Euthanasia The god of every individual should be the only one to bring death to a person and no person should have the authority to accept dying no matter the situation he/she is in.
• Singer’s Views on Voluntary Euthanasia, Non-voluntary Euthanasia, and Involuntary Euthanasia Hence, if a person consciously consents to die, there are no chances for recovery, and killing is the only way to deprive a patient from pain and suffering, euthanasia can be regarded as voluntary.
• Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide The final act that results in the death of the person is however usually performed by the person intending to die after the provision of information, advice and even the ways through which he or […]
• Euthanasia Authorization Debate Euthanasia, which is equivalent to the termination of life, can be equated to a total breach of the principle of the sacredness of life, as well as the breach of the legal right of human […]
• Moral and Ethical Concerns of Euthanasia in Healthcare In the matter of euthanasia, professionals ought to decide between the overall good of the dying patient and that of other stakeholders.
• Good and Harm to Humanity of the Use a Euthanasia An Overview of Euthanasia The meaning of euthanasia has changed over the years from how it was originally construed to what it means to the contemporary world.
• Euthanasia and Meaning of Life The meaning of life is the most general aspect of judging about the requirements that must be set out by laws and people’s morals in regarding to the voluntary or involuntary taking of that life.
• Euthanasia: Your Right to Die? Although both positions can be supported with a lot of arguments, people should change their absolutely negative vision of euthanasia because the right to die with the help of physicians can be considered as one […]
• Euthanasia and Human’s Right to Die Trying to support human life with the help of modern equipment is a good idea, however, not in case there are no chances for a person to live without that equipment.
• Euthanasia Moral Permissibility Secondly, the application of voluntary euthanasia should not be regarded as the only way of reducing the pain that a patient can experience.
• Euthanasia (Mercy Killing) In some circumstances, the family and friends of the patient might request the hospital to terminate the life of the patient without necessarily informing the patient.
• Euthanasian Issues in Modern Society Is it possible to find the relief in the life which is full of pain and agony for those people who suffer from serious diseases and have only a little chance to get rid of […]
• Euthanasia From a Disciple of Jesus Christ in Today’s World Another form of euthanasia is that of Assisted Suicide where the person intending to end his/her life is provided with the necessary guidance, means as well as information as to how to go about the […]
• Euthanasia and Modern Society Towards this end Battin asserts that “the relief of pain of a patient is the least disputed and of the highest priority to the physician” in direct reference to sole and major reason of carrying […]
• Euthanasia: Moral Issues and Clinical Challenges Therefore, any law that rejects euthanasia is a bad one because it denies the patients the right and the liberty to die peacefully.
• Ethical Issues Surrounding the Choice of Euthanasia in the United States
• The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Legalization of Euthanasia
• Confronting Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia
• The Difference Between Active and Passive Euthanasia
• Euthanasia: Current Policy, Problems, and Solution
• The Permit and Legalization of Euthanasia for the Terminally Ill Patients
• Moral and Religious Differences Between Euthanasia and Suicide
• The Criticisms and Opposition of Euthanasia in Australia
• Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia It Is Not Murder, It Is Mercy
• The Factors That Influence the Legalization of Active and Passive Euthanasia in the United States
• Roman Catholic Church’s Teachings on Abortion and Euthanasia
• The Different Reasons Why People Are Against Euthanasia
• Religious and Ethical Arguments in Favour of Euthanasia
• The Moral and Ethical Views on the Goal of Euthanasia
• Euthanasia and the Role of Politics and Religion
• The Philosophical, Legal, and Medical Issues on Euthanasia
• General Information About Euthanasia and the Legality of Suicide in Australia
• The Nazi Euthanasia Programme Based on Racial Purity Theories
• Dr. Jack Kevorkian’s Role in Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia
• Utilitarian and Libertarian Views on Euthanasia
• The Moral and Religious Differences, if Any, Between Euthanasia and Suicide
• Biblical World View About the Euthanasia, Suicide, and Capital Punishment
• The Truth About Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
• Tracing Back the Origins of the Practice of Euthanasia During the Greeks and Roman Times
• The Causes and Effects of Euthanasia and the Moral Right To Die
• The Arguments Against Euthanasia From a Standpoint of a Catholic Christian in the United States of America?
• Why Should Active Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legalized?
• What Are the Good and Bad Sides of Euthanasia?
• Do People Have To Commit Suicide by Euthanasia (Suicide by a Doctor)?
• What Is the Difference Between Passive and Active Euthanasia?
• What Are the Social Issues and Ethical Values of Euthanasia?
• What Is the Current Legal Situation Regarding Euthanasia?
• How Does Prohibition of Euthanasia Limit Our Rights?
• What Is the American Medical Association’s Attitude to Euthanasia?
• Can Hegelian Dialectics Justify Euthanasia?
• What Are the Viewpoints and Studies of the Legalization of Euthanasia in the United States?
• Why Does Parenting Make Euthanasia More Acceptable?
• What Are the Negative Arguments Against Euthanasia?
• Voluntary Euthanasia: What’s Right and Wrong?
• Why Can Christians not Accept Euthanasia?
• Can Euthanasia Help the Terminally Ill?
• What Are the Top Ten Reasons for Legalizing Euthanasia?
• Should Non Voluntary Euthanasia Be Legal?
• What Is the Difference Between Doctor-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia?
• Why Should Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Be Legalized?
• What’s Wrong With Involuntary Euthanasia?
• Why Are There So Different Views on Abortion and Euthanasia?
• How Would Christians Respond to the Issue of Abortion and Euthanasia?
• What Are the Objections To Legalizing Euthanasia in Hong Kong?
• How Does Euthanasia Devalue Human Life?
• What Are the Views and Arguments About Euthanasia?
• How May the Christian Faith Inform the Debate Over Euthanasia?
• What Does Euthanasia Mean to Society Today?
• What Are the Religious and Ethical Considerations to the Issue of Euthanasia?
• Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide – Who Wants It?
• Human Rights Essay Ideas
• Suffering Essay Topics
• Morality Research Ideas
• Death Penalty Questions
• Healthcare Questions
• Suicide Topics
• Constitution Research Ideas
• Social Justice Essay Ideas
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 28). 158 Euthanasia Topics & Essay Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/euthanasia-essay-examples/

"158 Euthanasia Topics & Essay Examples." IvyPanda , 28 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/euthanasia-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '158 Euthanasia Topics & Essay Examples'. 28 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "158 Euthanasia Topics & Essay Examples." February 28, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/euthanasia-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "158 Euthanasia Topics & Essay Examples." February 28, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/euthanasia-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "158 Euthanasia Topics & Essay Examples." February 28, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/euthanasia-essay-examples/.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Are We Loving Our Pets to Death?

Pet owners are treating their animal charges ever more like humans. But that isn’t good for pets, or for us, many experts argue.

By Linda Baker

This article is part of our Pets special section on scientists’ growing interest in our animal companions.

Pets are more popular than ever. Roughly two-thirds of American homes have at least one pet, up from 56 percent in 1988, according to the American Pet Products Association , and Americans spent $136.8 billion on their pets in 2022, up from $123.6 billion in 2021. An estimated 91 million households in Europe own at least one pet, an increase of 20 million over the past decade. The pet population in India hit 31 million in 2021, up from 10 million in 2011.

And our pets are becoming ever more like us — or at least, that seems to be our goal. We pamper them with customized nutrition plans and knapsack carriers, dog hydrotherapy and stays in boutique cat hotels. At All the Best, a high-end pet store chain in Seattle, the most popular items are feline and canine enrichment toys, d esigned to stimulate them and bring happiness to animals that increasingly “are lying around alone and bored,” said Annie McCall, the chain’s marketing director.

Now some animal welfare ethicists and veterinary scientists are wondering if, in our efforts to humanize our pets, we’ve gone too far. The more we treat pets like people, they argue, the more constrained and dependent on us our pets’ lives have become, and the more health and behavioral issues our pets develop.

“We now view pets not only as family members but as equivalent to children,” said James Serpell, an emeritus professor of ethics and animal welfare at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine. “The problem is, dogs and cats are not children, and owners have become increasingly protective and restrictive. So animals are not able to express their own doggy and catty natures as freely as they might.”

The health risks begin with breeding, of course. One of the most popular dog breeds in the United States is the French bulldog , a member of the brachycephalic family of flat-faced dogs that bond well with people but have trouble breathing, among other severe health problems.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

The Controversial Legacy of Ashli Babbitt: a Deep Dive into a National Debate

This essay about Ashli Babbitt examines her life, her actions during the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot, and the intense debate surrounding her death. Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran and ardent Trump supporter, was killed by a Capitol police officer while attempting to breach a secure area. The essay explores the polarized reactions to her death, with some viewing her as a martyr and others as part of a violent insurrection. It highlights the legal and political ramifications, including the decision not to charge the officer. Ultimately, Babbitt’s story underscores the deep political divisions and the dangers of misinformation in contemporary American society.

How it works

Ashli Babbitt’s name has become emblematic of the deep political and ideological divides in contemporary American society. Her death on January 6, 2021, during the storming of the U.S. Capitol, has sparked intense debate, raising questions about patriotism, violence, and the boundaries of protest. To understand the significance of Ashli Babbitt’s story, one must delve into her background, the events of that fateful day, and the subsequent reactions that have shaped her legacy.

Ashli Babbitt was a 35-year-old Air Force veteran from San Diego, California.

Having served her country for over a decade, Babbitt was a fervent supporter of then-President Donald Trump and an active participant in social media discourse promoting pro-Trump and QAnon conspiracy theories. Her military background and strong political beliefs underscore the complexity of her character; she was seen by some as a dedicated patriot and by others as a radicalized individual who succumbed to dangerous ideologies.

On January 6, 2021, Babbitt traveled to Washington, D.C., to attend the “Save America” rally, which was followed by a march to the Capitol. This rally, which was fueled by false claims of a stolen election, quickly escalated into a violent siege. Babbitt, along with hundreds of other protestors, breached the Capitol’s security barriers, leading to chaotic and violent confrontations with law enforcement.

Babbitt’s final moments were captured on video, showing her attempting to climb through a broken window into the Speaker’s Lobby, an area that led directly to the House of Representatives chamber. As she tried to enter, a Capitol police officer fired a single shot, striking her in the neck. She was rushed to a hospital but succumbed to her injuries. This moment has been replayed countless times in the media, becoming a potent symbol for various political narratives.

The reactions to Ashli Babbitt’s death have been polarized and deeply emotional. For many on the right, Babbitt is seen as a martyr, a patriot who died fighting for her beliefs. Her death has been used to fuel arguments against what they perceive as excessive use of force by law enforcement and to criticize the government’s handling of the protest. These supporters argue that Babbitt was unarmed and did not pose a direct threat, asserting that her death was unjust and emblematic of broader issues within the political system.

Conversely, those on the left and many mainstream commentators view Babbitt’s actions as part of a violent insurrection aimed at overturning a democratic election. From this perspective, Babbitt’s death, while tragic, was a consequence of her illegal and dangerous actions. They argue that the officer who shot her was protecting the lives of lawmakers and staffers who were in imminent danger from the mob. This camp views her as a tragic figure who was misled by extremist rhetoric and falsehoods.

The legal and political ramifications of Babbitt’s death have been significant. The Department of Justice decided not to press charges against the officer involved, citing that his actions were justified in the context of defending the Capitol. This decision has not quelled the controversy, with many continuing to call for further investigations and accountability.

Ashli Babbitt’s story is a microcosm of the broader societal conflicts that have defined recent American history. Her death highlights the potent mix of misinformation, deep-seated political divisions, and the capacity for violence that exists within certain segments of the population. It also raises important questions about the limits of protest and the responsibilities of law enforcement in maintaining order.

In the aftermath of her death, Babbitt has become a symbol for various causes, from police reform to debates over freedom of speech and the right to protest. Her legacy is contested, reflecting the ongoing struggle over the narrative of what happened on January 6, 2021. As the nation continues to grapple with these issues, the story of Ashli Babbitt serves as a reminder of the complexities and dangers inherent in a deeply polarized society.

In conclusion, Ashli Babbitt’s life and death are emblematic of the larger conflicts and challenges facing America today. Whether seen as a hero or a victim, her story forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about the state of our democracy, the power of misinformation, and the thin line between protest and insurrection. As we move forward, it is crucial to learn from her story and strive for a society where such tragedies can be prevented.

Cite this page

The Controversial Legacy of Ashli Babbitt: A Deep Dive into a National Debate. (2024, Jun 28). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-controversial-legacy-of-ashli-babbitt-a-deep-dive-into-a-national-debate/

"The Controversial Legacy of Ashli Babbitt: A Deep Dive into a National Debate." PapersOwl.com , 28 Jun 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-controversial-legacy-of-ashli-babbitt-a-deep-dive-into-a-national-debate/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Controversial Legacy of Ashli Babbitt: A Deep Dive into a National Debate . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-controversial-legacy-of-ashli-babbitt-a-deep-dive-into-a-national-debate/ [Accessed: 3 Jul. 2024]

"The Controversial Legacy of Ashli Babbitt: A Deep Dive into a National Debate." PapersOwl.com, Jun 28, 2024. Accessed July 3, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-controversial-legacy-of-ashli-babbitt-a-deep-dive-into-a-national-debate/

"The Controversial Legacy of Ashli Babbitt: A Deep Dive into a National Debate," PapersOwl.com , 28-Jun-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-controversial-legacy-of-ashli-babbitt-a-deep-dive-into-a-national-debate/. [Accessed: 3-Jul-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Controversial Legacy of Ashli Babbitt: A Deep Dive into a National Debate . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-controversial-legacy-of-ashli-babbitt-a-deep-dive-into-a-national-debate/ [Accessed: 3-Jul-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Human Rights — Euthanasia

Essays About Euthanasia

Euthanasia essay: examples, types of euthanasia essays:.

• Euthanasia Argumentative Essay: This type of essay presents arguments for and against euthanasia and requires the writer to take a position on the issue.
• Euthanasia Persuasive Essay: The purpose of this essay is to persuade the reader to support or reject the idea of euthanasia. The writer needs to use convincing arguments and evidence to support their position.
• Euthanasia Controversy Essay: This type of essay explores the controversies surrounding euthanasia, including ethical, moral, legal, and religious issues. The writer needs to analyze and present different perspectives on the issue.

Euthanasia: Argumentative Essay

• Choose a clear position: Before you start writing, it's important to decide where you stand on the issue of euthanasia. Do you believe that euthanasia should be legalized, or do you think it should remain illegal? Your position will guide your research and the evidence you present.
• Conduct thorough research: Euthanasia is a complex and controversial issue, so it's essential to do your research before starting to write. Look for reliable sources of information, such as academic articles, government reports, and medical journals.
• Develop a strong thesis statement: Your thesis statement should clearly state your position on euthanasia and provide a roadmap for the rest of your essay. It should be clear, concise, and easy to understand.
• Provide evidence to support your arguments: Use evidence to support your arguments, such as statistics, expert opinions, and case studies. Make sure that your evidence is credible and comes from reputable sources.
• Address counterarguments: It's important to address counterarguments to your position to demonstrate that you have considered all perspectives on the issue. Addressing counterarguments will also make your essay more persuasive.
• Use persuasive language: Use persuasive language to make your argument more convincing. Use strong, clear language that emphasizes your point of view.

Euthanasia: Persuasive Essay

• Conduct research: The writer should conduct thorough research on the topic to gather as much information as possible to support their argument.
• Develop a clear thesis statement: The writer should clearly state their position on euthanasia in the thesis statement.
• Present convincing evidence: The writer should use credible and convincing evidence to support their argument, such as statistics, case studies, and expert opinions.
• Address counterarguments: The writer should acknowledge and address counterarguments to their position, and provide strong rebuttals.
• Use persuasive language: The writer should use persuasive language and techniques, such as emotional appeals and rhetorical questions, to convince the reader of their position.

Euthanasia Controversy Essay

• Start with a clear and concise introduction that presents the topic and the main arguments.
• Conduct thorough research on the topic, using credible sources, such as academic journals, government reports, and expert opinions.
• Present a balanced view of the issue by providing arguments for and against euthanasia.
• Use clear and concise language, avoiding emotional language that may detract from the argument.
• Consider the ethical and moral implications of euthanasia, and the different perspectives of stakeholders involved.
• Conclude the essay with a summary of the main arguments and a final thought on the topic.

Tips for Choosing a Topic for Euthanasia Essays:

• Identify your stance: Before choosing a topic, decide on your position on euthanasia. This will help you select a suitable topic for your essay.
• Conduct research: Thoroughly research the topic of euthanasia to gain a better understanding of the subject matter. Use reliable sources such as books, journals, and academic articles.
• Brainstorm: Create a list of potential topics related to euthanasia and narrow down your choices based on your research and personal interest.
• Focus on a specific aspect: Instead of trying to cover the entire topic of euthanasia in your essay, focus on a specific aspect such as the ethical or legal implications.

Hook Examples for Euthanasia Essays

Anecdotal hook.

Meet John, a terminally ill patient who faces excruciating pain every day. His decision to seek euthanasia sparks a controversial debate over the right to die with dignity.

Question Hook

Is it ethical for physicians to assist patients in ending their lives to relieve unbearable suffering? Explore the moral dilemmas surrounding the topic of euthanasia.

Quotation Hook

"Dying is not a crime." — Jack Kevorkian. Investigate the legacy of Dr. Kevorkian, who championed the cause of physician-assisted suicide, and its impact on the euthanasia debate.

Statistical or Factual Hook

Did you know that euthanasia is legal in several countries, while it remains illegal in others? Examine the global landscape of euthanasia laws and the factors that influence these decisions.

Definition Hook

What exactly is euthanasia, and how does it differ from other end-of-life choices? Delve into the definitions, types, and terminology associated with this complex issue.

Rhetorical Question Hook

Should individuals have the autonomy to decide when and how they will end their lives, especially in cases of terminal illness? Analyze the arguments for and against euthanasia's role in preserving personal freedom.

Historical Hook

Travel through history to explore the evolution of euthanasia practices and laws. Discover how societies have grappled with the idea of mercy killing across centuries.

Contrast Hook

Contrast the perspectives of medical professionals who advocate for euthanasia as a compassionate choice with those who argue for preserving the sanctity of life at all costs. Explore the ethical dilemmas inherent in these differing viewpoints.

Narrative Hook

Step into the shoes of a family member faced with the agonizing decision of whether to support a loved one's request for euthanasia. Their personal story sheds light on the emotional complexities involved.

Shocking Statement Hook

Prepare to be shocked by the cases of covert euthanasia that occur outside the boundaries of the law. These stories expose the gray areas and ethical challenges surrounding end-of-life decisions.

Euthanasia, Assisted Dying and The Right to Die

Human euthanasia as an assisted suicide, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Issues Why Physician-assisted Suicide Should not Be Legalized

Physician-assisted suicide (pas), a controversy over the issue of physician assisted suicide, right to die: euthanasia issues, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

My Views on The Issue of Assisted Suicide

Physician-assisted death: advantages and moral matters of right to die, medical and ethical dilemma: euthanasia or right to die, range of moral, ethical and legal perspectives of right to die or euthanasia, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Discussion on Whether Human Euthanasia Should Be Made Illegal

Natural death and euthanasia: the catholic church’s historical response, the popularity of euthanasia among the american population, a moral interpretation of euthanasia and murder, analysis of physician-assisted suicide (pas) in terms of bioethics, a debate over allowing physician assisted suicide, arguments expressed by proponents of the legalization of physician-assisted suicide (pas), persuasive essay pro euthanasia, why physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients should be legalized, the arguments for euthanasia: a critical analysis, advantages and disadvantages of euthanasia, death with dignity act: ethical dilemma regarding euthanasia, the right to die: debating euthanasia in modern society, advocating for legalizing euthanasia, an assisted suicide: roller coasters as tools for euthanasia, euthanasia: examining arguments, ethics, and legalities, voluntary euthanasia persuasive speech, the struggle with physician assisted suicide in the united states, why euthanasia should not be allowed, physician aid in dying: a controversial ethical issue.

Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending life to relieve pain and suffering.

Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary (when a person wills to have their life ended), non-voluntary (when a patient's consent is unavailable), or involuntary (.done without asking for consent or against the patient's will)

Jack Kevorkian, Philip Nitschke, Barbara Coombs Lee.

The United States (Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Montana, Vermont, Hawaii), Switzerland, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Colombia, Canada.

Though euthanasia is still illegal in England, King George V was euthanized. Euthanasia is mostly administered by giving lethal doses of painkiller or other drugs. Despite Euthanasia being generally illegal in India, there is a tradition of forced euthanasia in South India.

Relevant topics

• Human Trafficking
• Police Brutality
• Death Penalty
• Freedom of Speech
• Gay Marriage
• Same Sex Marriage
• Assisted Suicide
• Child Labour

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free