euthanasia morally right 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

Events and Communications Coordinator

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

• 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

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• 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 they affect other people. Although healthy people find it difficult to imagine themselves in situations where they do not decide freely, it is also true that all of us are vulnerable and dependent on others.

Yet autonomy in relation to assisted dying is often viewed in the same way as our fundamental right to choose our own course in life. If we are able to control our lives, then surely we can also control our death. Autonomy with respect to your own death, however, is already halved: you can choose to die if you don’t want to live, but you cannot choose to live if you are about to die.

Decisions about your own death are not made in normal day-to-day contexts. The wish to die arises against a backdrop: of desperation, a feeling of hopelessness, possibly a feeling of being superfluous. Otherwise, the wish would not be there. Thus, it is under these circumstances that the right to self-determination is exercised and the decision is made. Such a situation is a fragile basis for autonomy and an even more fragile basis for decision making. The choice regarding your own death is therefore completely different from most other choices usually associated with the concept of autonomy.

Here are just some of the critical matters that would arise if assisted dying were legalised.

A duty to die

The possibility of choosing to die would inhabit everyone’s consciousness—the patient, the doctor, the relatives, and the care staff—even if not formulated as an out-and-out offer. But if a law on assisted dying gives the patient a right to die, that right may turn into a duty to die. How autonomously can the weakest people act when the world around them deems their ill, dependent, and pained quality of life as beyond recovery?

Patients can find themselves directly or indirectly under duress to choose that option if they consider themselves sufficiently pained and their quality of life sufficiently low. Patients must be at liberty to choose assisted dying freely, of course—that is how it is presented—but the point is that the patient cannot get out of having to choose. It has been called the “prison of freedom.”

Internalised external pressure

Pressure on the patient does not have to be direct or articulated. As pointed out by the US professor of biomedical ethics Daniel Sulmasy it may exist as an “internalised external pressure.” 2 Likewise, the French bioethicist Emmanuel Hirsch states that individual autonomy can be an illusion. The theologian Nigel Biggar quotes Hirsch saying that a patient “may truly want to die, but this desire is not the fruit of his freedom alone, it may be—and most often is—the translation of the attitude of those around him, if not of society as a whole which no longer believes in the value of his life and signals this to him in all sorts of ways. Here we have a supreme paradox: someone is cast out of the land of the living and then thinks that he, personally, wants to die.” 3

The end of autonomy

An inherent problem of autonomy in connection with assisted dying is that a person who uses his or her presumed right to self-determination to choose death definitively precludes himself or herself from deciding or choosing anything. Where death is concerned, your right to self- determination can be exerted only by disposing of it for good. By your autonomy, in other words, you opt to no longer have autonomy. And those around must respect the right to self-determination. The respect refers to a person who is respected, but this is precisely the person who disappears.

Danish philosopher Johannes Sløk, who supported legalisation, said, “The actual concept of death has no content, for death is the same as nothing, and one cannot choose between life and nothing. Rather, therefore, one must speak of opting out; one opts out of life, without thereby choosing anything else. Death is not ‘something other’ than life; it is the cessation or annihilation of life.”

Autonomy is a consistent principle running through the care and management of patients and is enshrined in law. However, a patient’s autonomy means that he or she has the right to decline any treatment. It does not entail a right to have any treatment the patient might wish for. Patients do not have the right to demand treatment that signifies another’s duty to fulfil that right. If that were so, autonomy would be the same as “autocracy”—rule of the self over others. Even though patients have the right to reject any intervention, they do not have the right to demand any intervention. Rejecting any claim that the person might make is not a violation of a patient’s self- determination—for example, there may be sound medical reasons for not complying with a demand. The doctor also has autonomy, allowing him or her to say no. Refusing to kill a person or assist in killing cannot be a violation of that person’s autonomy.

The killing ban

Assisted dying requires the doctor’s moral and physical help. It is a binding agreement between two people: the one who is to be killed and the one who is to kill or assist in killing. But our society does not condone killing as a relationship between two legally competent, consenting people. Exemptions from the killing ban involve war or self-defence and are not justified on the grounds that the killing is done for the “benefit” of someone else.

Valuation of a life

If the action is to be decriminalised, as some people wish, it means the doctor will have to enter into deliberations and arguments for and against a request for assisted dying each time. That is, whether he or she is willing to grant it. The alternative would be to refer the patient to another doctor who might be willing to help—that doctor would still have to assess whether the patient’s life was worth preserving.

Thus, autonomy is not the only factor or even always the key factor when deciding whether assisted dying can be granted. It is not only the patient’s own evaluation that is crucial. The value of the patient’s life must also be assessed as sufficiently low. This demonstrates the limitation of the patient’s self-determination.

Relieving suffering

If a competent and legally capable person must have the option of voluntarily choosing assisted dying in the event of unbearable suffering, why does suffering have to be a requirement? The answer is straightforward: our concepts of assisted dying imply that compassion must form a crucial aspect of the decision—mercy killing and compassionate killing are synonyms. But this leads instantly to the question of why we should not also perform assisted dying on people who are not in a position to ask for it themselves but are also suffering.

Some people find the reasoning unproblematic. It stands to reason that relieving suffering is a duty after all. But in this context it is not unproblematic, because it effectively shifts the focus from the autonomy claimed. According to prevailing ideas about autonomy, patients initially evaluate their quality of life themselves, but ultimately it is those around them who end up gauging that quality and the value of their life. That is to say, the justification for assisted dying is borne on the premise that certain lives are not worth living rather than the presence of a request. The whole point is that in the process, respect for the right to self-determination becomes relative.

Autonomy is largely an illusion in the case of assisted dying. 1 A patient overwhelmed by suffering may be more in need of compassion, care, and love than of a kind offer to help end his or her life. It is not a question of whether people have a right to say that they are unworthy. It is a question of whether they have a right to be believed when saying it.

Ole Hartling is a physician of over 30 years standing, doctor of medical sciences at the University of Copenhagen, professor of health promotion at the University of Roskilde, and an author and co-author of several books and scientific articles published mainly in Scandinavia. Between 2000 and 2007 he was a member of the Danish Council of Ethics and its chair for five years. During this time, the council extensively debated the ethics of euthanasia and assisted dying.

Competing interests: I have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare.

• Gastmans C ,
• MacKellar C

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

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Euthanasia — The Ethics of Euthanasia

The Ethics of Euthanasia

• Categories: Euthanasia

About this sample

Words: 804 |

Published: Jan 30, 2024

Words: 804 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, advantages of euthanasia, disadvantages of euthanasia, counterarguments and rebuttals, relieving pain and suffering, autonomy and personal choice, reducing medical costs, moral and ethical implications, the risk of abuse, impact on medical professionals, ethical considerations and alternatives, safeguards against abuse and potential solutions.

• New England Journal of Medicine. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0804651
• Journal of Medical Ethics. https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2013/05/15/medethics-2012-101093

Cite this Essay

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

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

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!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1552 words

2 pages / 850 words

3 pages / 1531 words

3 pages / 1154 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Euthanasia

Euthanasia, the act of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve suffering, has been a topic of intense ethical and practical debate. While proponents argue for its legalization as a compassionate end-of-life option, this [...]

Euthanasia, also known as mercy killing, is the act of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve their suffering. This controversial topic has been the subject of much debate and ethical consideration in the medical and [...]

The debate surrounding euthanasia is complex and multifaceted, involving considerations of ethics, religion, personal autonomy, and the value of human life. While advocates argue that euthanasia provides relief to those [...]

Euthanasia, also known as mercy killing, is the act of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve them from suffering. Voluntary euthanasia is when an individual makes a conscious decision to end their life with the [...]

Imagine facing a terminal illness with no hope for recovery, only prolonged suffering and pain. In such situations, the concept of euthanasia, or assisted suicide, becomes a controversial but increasingly relevant topic. [...]

Battin, M. P., Rhodes, R., & Silvers, A. (2015). The Patient as Victim and Vector: Can Ethics Abandon the Ideal of the Autonomous Patient? The American Journal of Bioethics, 15(3), 3-14.Pereira, J. M. (2011). Legalizing [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

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

Euthanasia: Moral Issues and Clinical Challenges Essay

Introduction.

Cases of euthanasia have persisted in the American judicial system, and this is a major challenge the states are facing. Though, those who believe in the patients’ autonomy and sympathize with them actually find it hard to accept the reality that legalizing euthanasia poses a lot of danger to many people’s rights and welfare.

It is a controversial debate to argue that there are certain rights linked to euthanasia whose denial can lead to application of liberty-limiting principles. Therefore, sound judicial policies are necessary in tackling this issue. Instead of leaving patients under the agony of extreme pain and suffering, positive clinical reforms as well as social reforms are necessary.

Terminal Sedation

Terminal sedation is morally right since the patient consents to it before its execution, and it is a method of letting the terminally ill patients die rather than killing them directly. This same argument can as well be supported by the fact that physicians have the moral duty to let their patients die peacefully and to relive them from pain and suffering. Besides, in most cases where duties conflict, it is the patients’ desires which are left as the deciding factors (Quill 474).

Terminal sedation involves administering high sedative doses so as to relieve the patient from severe physical distress and it makes him/her unconscious till death (Quill 475). In fact, termination sedation is allowed in cases whereby it is the only means to relieve the patient’s suffering.

Under such circumstances, it is neither immoral nor unethical and the doctor is at liberty to administer high doses of sedatives to the terminally ill patient. Contrary to euthanasia, terminal sedation can be regarded as a way of letting terminally ill patients die. However, euthanasia can be regarded as direct killing because the doctors administer lethal injections and drugs to the patients.

Holding to the view that terminal sedation is morally permissible should not stop someone from debating the permissibility of euthanasia since the intention of carrying out “mercy killing” is based on the patient’s consent with an aim to relieve him/her from incurable suffering (Rietjens 6).

In order to understand moral and ethical controversies surrounding terminal sedation, it is necessary to agree to the fact that a person can engage in an action that is morally permissible, but he/she is still morally blamed for it. For example, a physician who carries out terminal sedation, an act that is morally permissible, is still morally blamed.

This is rather awkward since physicians have good intentions towards patients, and that is why at times they engage in activities which relieve the patients’ suffering. For instance, a terminal cancer patient whose lung is failing has been on the respirator for a long time, undergoing extreme pain and suffering might request the physician in charge to remove him from the discomfort of respirator.

In this case it would be morally permissible for the doctor to respect the patient’s decision not to be put back under the discomfort of the respirator. The doctor might as well get tired with the patient’s persistence to be removed from the respirator, and decides to respect his/her wishes.

In this case, the physician’s actions are still morally right, not because he/she was tired of dealing with the patient, but it is morally permissible to remove life support from a terminally ill patient who wants to die. Indeed, it is unethical and morally wrong to prolong life of those terminally ill patients who want to die (Rietjens 2).

The McAfee case

Focusing on this case, it is not always important to exercise the right to end life since there can be other ways to make life more comfortable and worth living. McAfee depended on ventilator for quite long after the motorcycle accident, a situation that made him seek an appeal from the law court to be allowed to exercise the right to stop treatment. His case gained a lot of publicity and many people came to offer him support services that improved his life and encouraged him to continue living (PBS Local Station 1).

In fact, McAfee did not exercise his right to stop treatment. Therefore, it is important at times to let people die naturally. Though, it is important to tackle issues of patients assisted suicide and euthanasia from the clinical perspective, it is also important to analyze the social aspects (PBS Local Station 1).

DWDA and the Ashcroft to it (rejected by the Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court made a ruling that rejected the constitutional right of a patient engaging in euthanasia or patient assisted suicide (PAS). This would indeed intensify the debate on euthanasia and patient assisted suicide owing to the fact that the patients themselves strongly believe that they have liberty to terminate their life when undergoing extreme pain and suffering (Rietjens 4).

In Oregon’s case, it was argued whether Oregon had some rights towards allowing doctors to carry out patient assisted suicide (PAS) to those patients who were terminally ill (Oregon Public Health 1).

According to Ashcroft, it was illegitimate for Oregon doctors to administer drugs that help the terminally ill patients die (Oregon Public Health 1). However, terminally ill patients strongly believed that it was morally right for them to die peacefully, than undergoing through the most terrible pain and suffering during their last days.

Therefore, revoking Oregon doctors’ licenses for having prescribed drugs for euthanasia was a form of infringement to the patients’ right and liberty to die peacefully. This action taken by the Attorney General to revoke the doctors’ licenses, made Oregon to sue the administration for having overstepped its powers since it was not the right body to regulate the US medical practice (Rietjens 3).

Oregon doctors found it inappropriate to be stopped from carrying out patient assisted suicide, arguing that it was neither unethical nor immoral act since it was the patients’ morality. The doctors also argued that killing patients is unethical, morally wrong and is not one of the medical purposes. The supporters of Ashcroft dismissed Oregon’s practice as bad medicine since it interferes with the human dignity.

Though, on the patients’ side, it is not a question of ethics and morality since they strongly believe that they have the right to die peacefully, and not necessarily going through excruciating pain and suffering. On the other hand, the doctors believe in good medical practice, and making the terminally ill patients die peacefully is not a bad medicine. Therefore, any law that rejects euthanasia is a bad one because it denies the patients the right and the liberty to die peacefully (PBS Local Station 1).

In sum, it is both morally and ethically permissible to carry out euthanasia and patient assisted suicide (PAS). However, we should not always grant people the right and liberty to end life, as witnessed in the McAfee case. In addition, it has been witnessed that legal challenges are some of the liberty-limiting principles used when the rights to end life are denied. These two areas try to overlap since the right to life is legally enshrined in the constitution.

However, moral issues and clinical challenges play some crucial roles in analyzing euthanasia, patient assisted suicide (PAS) and sedative termination. Therefore, in most cases a patient who refuses medicine and wants to die should have his/her will respected, especially those suffering from terminal illnesses.

Works Cited

Oregon Public Health. Death with Dignity Act . Public Health, n.d. Web.

PBS Local Station. Oregon’s Assisted Suicide Case . Pbs News Hour. 2005. Web.

Quill, Timothy. “Death and Dignity: A case of Individualized Decision Making”. New England Journal of Medicine 324.10 (1991):473-483. Print.

Rietjens, Judith. Terminal Sedation and Euthanasia . Archinte, n.d. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, December 30). Euthanasia: Moral Issues and Clinical Challenges. https://ivypanda.com/essays/euthanasia/

"Euthanasia: Moral Issues and Clinical Challenges." IvyPanda , 30 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/euthanasia/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Euthanasia: Moral Issues and Clinical Challenges'. 30 December.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Euthanasia: Moral Issues and Clinical Challenges." December 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/euthanasia/.

1. IvyPanda . "Euthanasia: Moral Issues and Clinical Challenges." December 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/euthanasia/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Euthanasia: Moral Issues and Clinical Challenges." December 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/euthanasia/.

• Conscious Sedation: Preventing Respiratory Complications in Patients
• Older Patient Care and Related Ethical Challenges
• Comparison of Remifentanil Sedation with Conventional Regimen in Intensive Care Unit
• Transcultural Nursing
• The Policy of “Fair Chance” in Organ Transplant
• Ethics in Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART)
• The Ethical Code in Provider-Patient Relationship
• Privacy and confidentiality of patients

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

Essay on Euthanasia: 100, 200 and 300 Words Samples

• Updated on  
• Feb 22, 2024

Essay on Euthanasia: Euthanasia refers to the act of killing a person without any emotions or mercy. Euthanasia is an ethnically complex and controversial topic, with different perspectives and legal regulations on different topics. School students and individuals preparing for competitive exams are given assigned topics like essays on euthanasia. The objective of such topics is to check the candidate’s perspectives and what punishment should be morally and legally right according to them. 

If you are assigned an essay on euthanasia, it means your examiner or teacher wants to know your level of understanding of the topic. In this article, we will provide you with some samples of essays on euthanasia. Feel free to take ideas from the essays discussed below.

Master the art of essay writing with our blog on How to Write an Essay in English .

Table of Contents

• 1 Essay on Euthanasia in 150 Words
• 2.1 Euthanasia Vs Physician-Assisted Suicide
• 2.2 Euthanasia Classification
• 3 Is Euthanasia Bad?

Essay on Euthanasia in 150 Words

Euthanasia or mercy killing is the act of deliberately ending a person’s life.  This term was coined by Sir Francis Bacon. Different countries have their perspectives and laws against such harmful acts. The Government of India, 2016, drafted a bill on passive euthanasia and called it ‘The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patient’s Bill (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners). 

Euthanasia is divided into different classifications: Voluntary, Involuntary and Non-Voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in countries like Belgium and the Netherlands, with the patient’s consent. On one side, some supporters argue for an individual’s right to autonomy and a dignified death. On the other hand, the opponents raise concerns about the sanctity of life, the potential for abuse, and the slippery slope towards devaluing human existence. The ethical debate extends to questions of consent, quality of life, and societal implications.

Also Read: Essay on National Science Day for Students in English

Essay on Euthanasia in 350 Words

The term ‘Euthanasia’ was first coined by Sir Francis Bacon, who referred to an easy and painless death, without necessarily implying intentional or assisted actions. In recent years, different countries have come up with different approaches, and legal regulations against euthanasia have been put forward. 

In 2016, the government of India drafted a bill, where euthanasia was categorised as a punishable offence. According to Sections 309 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, any attempt to commit suicide and abetment of suicide is a punishable offence. However, if a person is brain dead, only then he or she can be taken off life support only with the help of family members.

Euthanasia Vs Physician-Assisted Suicide

Euthanasia is the act of intentionally causing the death of a person to relieve their suffering, typically due to a terminal illness or unbearable pain. 

Physician-assisted suicide involves a medical professional providing the means or information necessary for a person to end their own life, typically by prescribing a lethal dose of medication.

In euthanasia, a third party, often a healthcare professional, administers a lethal substance or performs an action directly causing the person’s death.

It is the final decision of the patient that brings out the decision of their death.

Euthanasia Classification

Voluntary Euthanasia

It refers to the situation when the person who is suffering explicitly requests or consents to euthanasia. A patient with a terminal illness may express his or her clear and informed desire to end their life to a medical professional.

Involuntary

It refers to the situation when euthanasia is performed without the explicit consent of the person, often due to the individual being unable to communicate their wishes.

Non-Voluntary

In this situation, euthanasia is performed without the explicit consent of the person, and the person’s wishes are unknown.

Active euthanasia refers to the deliberate action of causing a person’s death, such as administering a lethal dose of medication.

It means allowing a person to die by withholding or withdrawing treatment or life-sustaining measures.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are a defeat for all. We are called never to abandon those who are suffering, never giving up but caring and loving to restore hope. — Pope Francis (@Pontifex) June 5, 2019

Also Read: Essay on Cleanliness

Is Euthanasia Bad?

Euthanasia is a subjective term and its perspectives vary from person to person. Different cultures, countries and religions have their own set of values and beliefs. Life is sacred and gifted to us by god or nature. Therefore, intentionally causing death goes against moral and religious beliefs. 

However, some people have raised concerns about the potential for a slippery slope, where the acceptance of euthanasia could lead to the devaluation of human life, involuntary euthanasia, or abuse of the practice. Some even argue that euthanasia conflicts with their traditional medical ethics of preserving life and prioritizing the well-being of the patient.

Today, countries like the Netherlands and Belgium have legalised euthanasia. In India, the USA and the UK, it is a punishable offence with varying sentences and fines. Euthanasia is a complex and controversial topic and creating a law against or for it requires a comprehensive study by experts and the opinions of all sections of society. 

Ans: Euthanasia refers to the act of killing a person without any emotions or mercy. Euthanasia is an ethnically complex and controversial topic, with different perspectives and legal regulations on different topics.

Ans: The term ‘Euthanasia’ was first coined by Sir Francis Bacon, who referred to an easy and painless death, without necessarily implying intentional or assisted actions. In recent years, different countries have come up with different approaches, and legal regulations against euthanasia have been put forward.  In 2016, the government of India drafted a bill, where euthanasia was categorised as a punishable offence. According to Sections 309 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, any attempt to commit suicide and abetment of suicide is a punishable offence. However, if a person is brain dead, only then he or she can be taken off life support only with the help of family members.

Ans: Belgium and the Netherlands have legalised euthanasia. However, it is banned in India.

Related Articles

For more information on such interesting topics, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu.

Shiva Tyagi

With an experience of over a year, I've developed a passion for writing blogs on wide range of topics. I am mostly inspired from topics related to social and environmental fields, where you come up with a positive outcome.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out