The Distinction between Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide

Posted: August 26th, 2024

The Distinction between Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide
Week 2 Discussion Forum
Complete your Week 2 required discussion prompt.
• In your own words, describe the difference between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
•
Select an argument for or against either euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. How would you defend your argument with one of the 6 ethical theories discussed in the ppt?
11
• In addition to your main response, you must also post substantive responses to at least two of your classmates’ posts in this thread. Your response should include elements such as follow up questions, further exploration of topics from the initial post, or requests for further clarification or explanation on some points made by the classmates.

========

Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Ethical Considerations

The concepts of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have long been subjects of ethical debate in healthcare and society. While both practices involve ending a person’s life to relieve suffering, they differ significantly in their implementation and the role of medical professionals.

Euthanasia refers to the deliberate act of ending a person’s life to alleviate suffering, typically carried out by a physician. This process involves the doctor directly administering a lethal substance to the patient. In contrast, physician-assisted suicide occurs when a doctor provides the means for a patient to end their own life, usually by prescribing a lethal medication, but the final act is performed by the patient themselves (Goligher et al., 2019).

The key distinction lies in the level of physician involvement. Euthanasia requires active participation from the doctor in administering the life-ending substance, while physician-assisted suicide limits the doctor’s role to providing the means, with the patient making the final decision and taking action.

Argument and Ethical Defense

An argument in favor of physician-assisted suicide posits that it respects patient autonomy and alleviates unnecessary suffering. This stance can be defended using the ethical theory of utilitarianism, which emphasizes maximizing overall well-being and minimizing suffering for the greatest number of people.

Utilitarianism, as proposed by philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, evaluates the morality of actions based on their consequences. In the context of physician-assisted suicide, a utilitarian approach would consider the reduction of suffering for both the patient and their loved ones as a positive outcome (Cholbi, 2020).

For terminally ill patients experiencing intractable pain or severely diminished quality of life, the option of physician-assisted suicide could provide a means to end their suffering. Moreover, it would alleviate the emotional and financial burdens on family members who might otherwise witness prolonged suffering or incur substantial healthcare costs.

However, critics argue that allowing physician-assisted suicide might lead to a “slippery slope” where vulnerable populations feel pressured to end their lives prematurely. To address this concern, proponents of physician-assisted suicide advocate for strict regulations and safeguards to ensure that the practice is only available to those who are mentally competent and have exhausted all other treatment options (Lerner & Caplan, 2021).

From a utilitarian perspective, the potential benefits of reducing suffering and respecting individual autonomy could outweigh the risks if proper safeguards are in place. Utilitarianism would support physician-assisted suicide as an ethical option when it results in a net positive outcome for all involved parties.

It is crucial to note that this ethical framework is just one approach to analyzing the complex issue of physician-assisted suicide. Other ethical theories, such as deontology or virtue ethics, might lead to different conclusions. The ongoing debate surrounding this topic reflects the complexity of balancing individual autonomy, societal values, and medical ethics.

In conclusion, while euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide share the goal of ending suffering, they differ in their implementation and the level of physician involvement. The argument for physician-assisted suicide, when examined through the lens of utilitarianism, finds support in its potential to reduce overall suffering and respect patient autonomy. However, the ethical implications of such practices remain a subject of intense debate in medical and philosophical circles.

References:

Cholbi, M. (2020). Suicide: The philosophical dimensions. Broadview Press.

Goligher, E. C., Cigolini, M., Cormier, A., Donnelly, S., Ferrier, C., Gerson, S. M., … & Sprung, C. L. (2019). Evolution of euthanasia and its practice worldwide: A systematic review. BMC Medicine, 17(1), 1-11.

Lerner, B. H., & Caplan, A. L. (2021). Euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands: On a slippery slope? JAMA Internal Medicine, 181(10), 1279-1280.