reasons against euthanasia essay

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

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

Disclosure statement

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

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

View all partners

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

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

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

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

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

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

Passive form of euthanasia

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

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

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

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

Death with dignity

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

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

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

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

Argument in favour of assisted suicide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Audience Development Coordinator (fixed-term maternity cover)

Data and Reporting Analyst

Lecturer (Hindi-Urdu)

Director, Defence and Security

Opportunities with the new CIEHF

• - 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

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

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

Euthanasia – Arguments in Favour and Against

Last updated on April 7, 2024 by ClearIAS Team

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

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

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

Table of Contents

Voluntary, Non-Voluntary, and Involuntary Euthanasia

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

Passive vs Active euthanasia

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

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

Euthanasia debate

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

Learn more from: ClearIAS Study Materials

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

Arguments in Favor

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

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

Arguments against

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

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

Euthanasia in India

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

The Aruna Shanbaug Case

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

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

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

PIL filed by Common Cause

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

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

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

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

Government’s endorsement of Passive Euthanasia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read:  Living wills

Article by: Jishnu J Raju

Take a Test: Analyse Your Progress

Aim IAS, IPS, or IFS?

About ClearIAS Team

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

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

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

Reader Interactions

February 11, 2016 at 3:48 pm

excellent one..

February 24, 2016 at 8:34 pm

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

July 20, 2017 at 4:28 pm

so very true.

July 1, 2016 at 10:58 pm

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

March 16, 2017 at 12:37 pm

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

March 16, 2017 at 12:35 pm

Very Very Useful

June 26, 2018 at 8:12 am

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

May 17, 2019 at 9:58 pm

Thanku for quality content

May 23, 2020 at 10:27 pm

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

July 2, 2020 at 2:26 pm

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

May 24, 2021 at 11:57 am

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

August 25, 2021 at 9:40 am

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

August 4, 2022 at 12:11 pm

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

June 28, 2023 at 6:36 pm

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

September 19, 2022 at 12:47 pm

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

Boghos L. Artinian

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

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

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

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

Featured on

and many more...

• Search Menu
• Accident and Trauma
• Anaesthesia
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Cardiovascular Disease
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Critical Care/Intensive Care/Emergency Medicine
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology
• Environment and Disease
• Gastroenterology
• General Practice
• Geriatric Medicine
• Haematology
• Health Policy
• Health Economics
• Infectious Diseases
• Liver Disease
• Neonate Medicine
• Neurophysiology
• Neurosurgery
• Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology
• Paediatric Medicine & Surgery
• Palliative Medicine
• Perioperative Medicine
• Public Health Medicine
• Renal Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine
• Rheumatology
• Sports Medicine
• Transplantation
• Tropical Medicines
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About British Medical Bulletin
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

The implication of a medicalized dying process, the historical case against physicians assisting suicide, the medical cloak, collaborators in euthanasia, healing and euthanasia, recent developments, is euthanasia medical treatment, acknowledgements.

• < Previous

Euthanasia is not medical treatment

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

J. Donald Boudreau, Margaret A. Somerville, Euthanasia is not medical treatment, British Medical Bulletin , Volume 106, Issue 1, June 2013, Pages 45–66, https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldt010

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The public assumes that if euthanasia and assisted suicide were to be legalized they would be carried out by physicians.

In furthering critical analysis, we supplement the discourse in the ethics and palliative care literature with that from medical education and evolving jurisprudence.

Both proponents and opponents agree that the values of respect for human life and for individuals' autonomy are relevant to the debate.

Advocates of euthanasia and assisted suicide give priority to the right to personal autonomy and avoid discussions of harmful impacts of these practices on medicine, law and society. Opponents give priority to respect for life and identify such harmful effects. These both require euthanasia to remain legally prohibited.

Proposals are emerging that if society legalizes euthanasia it should not be mandated to physicians.

The impact of characterizing euthanasia as ‘medical treatment’ on physicians' professional identity and on the institutions of medicine and law should be examined in jurisdictions where assisted suicide and euthanasia have been de-criminalized.

….tha'll nivver feel it, tha'll be out of existence i' two minutes

James Billington

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia are among the most contentious issues faced by the medical profession. Numerous scholars have argued in favor of 1 or against 2 ‘assisted death’, as these interventions are euphemistically called. These debates generally take it for granted that the person carrying out euthanasia will be a physician. That assumption has been questioned, most recently, by two ethicists from the Harvard Medical School who propose a limited role for physicians in assisted dying. 3 We discuss their proposal shortly. The possibility of deleting the physician from the equation has certainly not been salient in professional discourse.

In this article we will examine factors, highlighting historical contexts and the influence of language, which have helped campaigners who aim to sanitize ‘assisted dying’ by associating it with medicine. We broach the issue of whether euthanasia can be considered medical treatment by focusing on the irreconcilability of euthanasia with medicine's mandate to heal.

In the remainder of this text, we use the word euthanasia to include PAS, unless the contrary is indicated. We do so in accordance with the fact that both procedures raise the same ethical and legal considerations with respect to many of the issues discussed in this article. In PAS and euthanasia, physicians and society are complicit in helping persons to commit suicide or giving them a lethal injection, respectively. Moreover, whether or not a society will alter its laws to allow ‘medically induced death’ is a binary decision.

Are medical doctors, by being responsible for the prolongation of the dying process, blameworthy for the existence of conditions that elicit a desire for hastened death? The profession has indeed created circumstances, through overly aggressive technical interventions, whereby persons' illness narratives have included chapters with alienating, depersonalizing and dehumanizing plots and characters. The following trajectory of a hypothetical patient with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is all too common: first, non-invasive nocturnal ventilation enters the scenario; next, a wheelchair; then a Dobhof feeding tube, promptly replaced by a jejunostomy; innumerable venous punctures and catheterizations; intervening urinary tract infections; recurrent aspiration pneumonias, followed by invasive ventilation, eventually necessitating a tracheostomy; accompanied by unremitting despondency; and finally, progressive somnolence and terminal sepsis. Too many patients find themselves in a sickroom in such a state, one of spent physical resources and suspended hope or even total despair. Some would add that this metaphoric dwelling is also inhabited by a crushed spirituality.

Pro-euthanasia advocates sometimes present such scenarios to support their views that the profession is, in some measure, responsible for the condition in which a patient may conceive of no escape or redress other than self-willed death. A comment such as, ‘I'd rather die than slog on with deformity, disfigurement and disability', is not infrequently heard and, when expressed, often denounces a sequence of medical interventions rather than the original illness. In dire situations, one of the few avenues that can seem to offer a sense of comfort is that of personal control. Control, usually packaged in a discursive frame of politico-judicial personal autonomy, can be manifest as a desire to manage the ultimate mode of exit from life, that is, for patients to select the method, place and hour of their death. Moreover, some may want this stance to be legitimized by societal approval and even see it as a heroic act and as furthering a common cause, by promoting shared values and ideologies. 4

It would, however, be an overstatement to attribute all changes in the nature of death to the health professions. Improvements in general socioeconomic conditions have decreased the incidence of death from catastrophic accidents, trauma and obstetrical mishaps and have lessened the impact of previously deadly infectious diseases. Undeniably, the shift in prevalence from acute and preventable conditions to chronic degenerative diseases, as well as many cancers, is a consequence of a prolongation of life resulting from improvements in public health, universal literacy and preventive interventions. Nonetheless, there is a kernel of truth in the notion, expressed in commentaries dating from Hellenistic to modern times, that physicians have invented ‘lingering’ death. 5 We believe that some of the profession's approaches in responding to illness in modern society may have fueled the clamour for radical solutions such as euthanasia.

The process has been abetted by those who espouse so-called ‘progressive values’, in what are often referred to as the ‘culture wars’, and who often manifest a pervasive questioning of authority. 6 A desire for unfettered individual decision-making powers—seeing ‘radical autonomy’ as always being the overriding value—and the demotion of established religions as influential voices in the public square are also important factors in the rise in demands to legalize euthanasia. We consider euthanasia a misguided solution to a complex socio-cultural transformation. It is reasonable that the medical profession not deny its contributions to the situation; but, it would be perverse if it allows itself to be co-opted by a perceived need for atonement. It must be vigilant to avoid over-compensating by endorsing society-sanctioned euthanasia.

The profession must not disown its ethical tradition or abandon its basic precepts. The potential harm is not only to individuals, but also to the institutions of medicine and law and the roles they play in society, especially in secular societies, where they are the primary carriers of the value of respect for human life, at the level of both the individual person and society. Ironically, they are more important in this regard now than when religion was the main carrier of the value of respect for life. 4 Therefore, the degrees of freedom, in terms of legitimate actions and behaviours available to physicians confronted with a dying patient are, and must remain, clearly and strictly limited.

The injunction against physician involvement in hastening death has recurred throughout recorded history, the Hippocratic Oath providing the following emblematic statement: ‘I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect’. 7 This unambiguous prohibition has oriented medical practice towards specific ends and means and away from certain others for over 2400 years. Its enduring impact was apparent in early-modern Western society. Euthanasia was discussed by the lawyer Casper Questel in a book entitled ‘De pulvinari morientibus non subtrahendo’. 8 Translated as ‘On the pillow of which the dying should not be deprived’, it described common practices that were thought to hasten death. These popular practices included removing pillows from dying persons so that, with their bodies completely supine, ventilatory capacity would be constricted and death accelerated. Another strategy was to transfer dying persons from their beds to the ground. Perhaps the latter operated through a tacit understanding that the bodily cold thereby induced would bring dying persons closer to their natural demise. Regardless of the underlying pathophysiologic mechanism, it is highly probable that symbolism (for example, facilitating passage of the soul from the shell of the dying body to life eternal) was at play. We note that it was natural death that was sought, not terminating the life of the person.

An intriguing and noteworthy feature of this ancient text is that such practices were popular amongst the general public. They were not acts delegated by society to a particular group and certainly not restricted to medical doctors. Questel was aware of undesirable ramifications if they were practiced by physicians. Physicians risked losing trust should they be discovered to have intentionally shortened the lives of dying patients. Trust is of paramount importance to a successful doctor–patient encounter and is indispensable to the implicit moral contract between the profession and society. 9 Maintaining the trust of individual patients and of society is a sine qua non for the maintenance of professional status. Participating in euthanasia carries the risk of vitiating trustworthiness.

Constraints on physician complicity in euthanasia are to be found throughout history. An 1826 Latin manuscript by a physician, Carl Friedrich Marx, referred to medical euthanasia as the skillful alleviation of suffering. 10 He absolutely forbade physicians from engaging in any attempt at accelerating death, stating : ‘ … and least of all should he be permitted, prompted either by other people's request or his own sense of mercy, to end the patient's pitiful condition by purposefully and deliberately hastening death’. Examples of more recent statements of such prohibitions include the defeat in the House of Lords in 1932 of the ‘Voluntary Euthanasia Bill’ 11 and the Canadian parliament's clear rejection in 2010, by a vote of 228 to 59, of Bill C-384, a private member's bill that would have permitted PAS and euthanasia. 12

Certain jurisdictions, notably the Netherlands and Belgium, have legalized euthanasia. In America, Oregon's ‘Death with Dignity Act’, which permits PAS, came into force in 1997 and Washington state followed suit in 2008. However, on 6 November 2012, Massachusetts voters defeated a ballot that would have allowed assisted suicide, 51–49%. There have been discussions, debates and proposed legislation in many other American states and other countries in the recent past. Generally, these have reaffirmed the ban on medical assistance in killing (whether in the context of end-of-life or, in the USA, physicians' involvement in carrying out capital punishment through lethal injections). The Benelux and a few American states represent the exception to the rule. ‘Do not kill’ has been considered a moral absolute for most physicians for millennia, and remains so for physicians even in jurisdictions where the public has looked favorably on legislative change. That medicine has all to do with healing, and nothing to do with the purposeful ending of life, has been a reverberating imperative throughout history.

The pro-euthanasia lobby derives advantages by aligning itself tightly with medicine and physicians. The history of physician involvement in capital punishment is illustrative of this strategy. Juries in the USA, who had seen horrific footage of convicted murderers being executed in the ‘electric chair’, became reluctant to convict persons accused of capital offences or to vote for a death sentence for felons convicted of a capital offence. Most physicians and the American Medical Association adamantly opposed medicine's involvement in administering capital punishment by lethal injections. Nevertheless, some physicians participated. By virtue of their involvement and in concocting a method of execution that makes a convicted criminal appear serene during final moments, enhanced acceptability was conferred on the procedure. It has been suggested that ‘the law turned to medicine to rescue the death penalty’. 13

It is germane to point out that the word ‘doctor’ is linked etymologically to ‘teacher’. The Oxford English dictionary's definition is: ‘one who gives instruction in some branch of knowledge, or inculcates opinions or principles’. 14 Medical doctors can influence public opinion, much as teachers contribute to the socialization of their pupils. The recruitment of doctors, both as a collectivity and as individuals, to undertake a procedure, can greatly modify the public's view of that procedure.

Language is critically important in not only reflecting, but also creating reality. For example, the field testing conducted prior to the passage of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act demonstrated that when the intervention was described as ‘suicide’ or ‘euthanasia’, popular support declined by 10–12%. 15 The phrase ‘death with dignity’, by avoiding the negative connotations of suicide, was perceived as less alarming. It was able to create a halo of benignity and to generate greater support for and muted opposition to the proposed law. For similar reasons, the euphemism ‘physician assistance in a dignified death’ is reassuring. It would be rare indeed for an individual to wish explicitly for a gruesome death or want to banish a benevolent healer from the sickroom. Research shows that emotions, 16 which we would qualify as ‘examined emotions’, and we would add, moral intuition, are important in making good ethical decisions. Choice of language affects both these human ways of knowing what is morally right and morally wrong. 17

Jill Dierterle, a member of the Department of History and Philosophy at Eastern Michigan University, denigrates the validity and power of words in order to claim that none of the anti-PAS arguments hold merit and concludes that ‘we have no reason not to legalize it’. 18 She turns a blind eye to any potential harm and conveniently overlooks the lacuna in current data-gathering procedures or impact assessments. This stance flies in the face of the golden rule of medicine: primum non nocere. Hence, it is anathema to the vast majority of practicing physicians. Few of us, presented with a new and relatively untested therapeutic instrument, would conclude, ‘we have no reason to doubt its safety; let's forge ahead’. Her nonchalant dismissal borders on the offensive. Note how she handles an important deontological argument against PAS: ‘ … if PAS is wrong, its wrongness cannot be constituted by its conflict with the Hippocratic Oath. After all, the Hippocratic Oath itself is just a bunch of words’. 18 With the phrase ‘just a bunch of words’ Diertele implies that the oath is hollow and meaningless. But ethical precepts and laws are also just a ‘bunch of words’, yet they establish our metaphysical reality—what can be called our metaphysical ecosystem—which, depending on its nature, determines whether or not we have a society in which reasonable people would want to live.

It is critical to the euthanasia debate to consider what role, if any, physicians may, should or must not play. It is not a ‘given’ that, were euthanasia to be legalized, it would be inextricable from the medical mandate. We propose that it is in the best interests of individuals and society to remove the medical cloak from euthanasia in order to lay bare fundamental arguments against it. The stakes are too high to have the veneer of doctoring obscure the essential core of what is involved and its potential harms and risks.

The commentary previously mentioned, ‘Redefining Physicians’ Role in Assisted Dying’, suggests that a non-physician group could be made responsible for the ‘active’ role in euthanasia. 3 The label ‘thanatologist’ has been suggested for such a group. 11 The possibility that a new discipline might emerge raises a set of intriguing questions: What would be the scope of practice of thanatologists? Where would one draw the line between ‘active’ and ‘passive’ roles? Of what might their education consist? We want to make it clear that we believe euthanasia is inherently wrong and, therefore, should never be undertaken, but, it is important to consider what such a proposal could involve if it were put into practice.

It is reasonable to speculate that the training could be offered in a program at a technical level and that the duration of training period would be modest. The act of terminating someone's life is thought to be fairly straightforward—at least, the execution of it is not overly complicated. The experience in the UK of recruiting and training hangmen can provide useful clues. 19 Executioners were trained in the late 19th to mid-20th century with a 5-day course that included lectures, a practical component—‘applicants to pass pinioning in the presence of the Governor’—and ended with a written examination that included simple algebra—the applicant was required to calculate the length of drop (i.e. stretch of the rope) for men of varying weights. Given the complexity of drug-based protocols used in euthanasia, 5 days of instruction would likely be insufficient. A program in the order of 24 weeks, as is the case for cadet training in many police academies, might allow for core objectives to be adequately covered and relevant abilities to be tested and credentialed.

A provocative essay on the topic suggests that lawyers could be trained in euthanasia, practicing a new specialty called legistrothanatry. 20 Although admittedly implausible, the proposal serves to foreground pragmatic issues relevant to the debate. It rests on two fundamental assumptions: (i) that lawyers are trained to interpret laws and regulations accurately, to apply them strictly and to act on the basis of implementing patients' values and (ii) that carrying out the required tasks does not require sophisticated technical expertise. The authors state, ‘Attorneys who wish to provide this service would require only a small amount of additional training’. 20 An appropriate educational blueprint could include the following cognitive base: the physiology of dying, basic pharmacology and an overview of the historical, ethical and legal aspects of natural and requested/assisted death. The toolkit of required skills would likely include: communication, verification of decision-making capacity and informed consent, securing of intravenous access, supplying and/or administering of lethal drugs, management of complications, accurate recognition of death and completion of death certificates. The desired attitudinal substrate would include: personal resolve (that is, stick-with-it-ness), respect for individuals' rights to autonomy and self-determination, and, ideally, a calm demeanour.

Although the tone of the previous discussion may be—and should be—rather ‘chilling’, the substance it addresses has clearly gained a foothold in the current medical literature. A description of procedures for successful euthanasia has been published; one is entitled ‘Euthanasia: medications and medical procedures’. 21 It includes protocols for dealing with terminal dyspnea or agitation in the terminal phase, euthanasia, and the induction of ‘controlled sedation’. Controlled sedation is placed in inverted commas by the author, presumably because he feels that it needs qualification; in his opinion, it represent a hypocritical response to suffering and is undertaken with the aim of muzzling the patient while he dies. We note, but will not discuss here, the ethical issues raised by ‘palliative sedation’, sometimes called ‘terminal sedation’, in which the dying patient is sedated in order to relieve otherwise unrelievable suffering. We suggest that the former term should be used when sedation is the only reasonable, medically indicated, way to relieve the patient's suffering (when it is not euthanasia); the latter term is appropriate when those conditions are not fulfilled and the doctor's intention is to hasten the patient's death (when it is euthanasia).

The epigram to the euthanasia guidelines cited above is fascinating. It states: ‘One summer evening, Mr J-M L, suffering from Charcot's Disease, passed away peacefully after having asked for and obtained the assistance of a physician. Upon leaving the home, the latter did not ponder: ‘What did I do?’ but rather, ‘Did I do it well?’ (Translation by author JDB) 21 This formulation reveals a unique mindset. The affective and moral stance expressed in that quote is closely aligned to a technical perspective, one where the emphasis is on accomplishing tasks with self-efficacy as opposed to one embellished with critical reflection. Meta-reflection is an important aspect of doctoring. What we do and the conversations we routinely engage in forge who we become; they become a habitus. Even the clothing we wear can influence our thought processes. For example, a recent article documents the impacts on cognition of donning a lab coat. 22 If the simple habitual act of wearing a white lab coat can affect thinking and action, one can easily imagine the harmful impacts of regular discussions of euthanasia as they insinuate themselves into the ethos of medical care.

‘The Executioner's Bible’, a story of England's executioners in the 20th century, describes the work of the hangman as a ‘cold, clinical operation’. 19 The epigram we have chosen for our essay, extracted from that textbook, is a quote from James Billington, the UK's Chief Executioner from 1891 to 1901. It is intended to evoke calculated efficiency. The author of ‘Euthanasia: medications and medical procedures’ is similarly categorical, prescriptive and unrestrained by self-doubt. For example, he advises the physician not to propose suicide without medical assistance; to do so is considered incompatible with the role of the physician. He warns the physician against using ‘violent options’ (such as injecting potassium chloride) as this is considered contrary to medical ethics. Leaving aside a disregard for the value of respect for life, the punctilious euthanizer can be seen as behaving with professional dignity and serenity, within a priori defined limits. As the Home Office stated in 1926, when describing the work of hangman William Willis, ‘ … .even an executioner can remain humane and decorous’. 19 Our purpose in making this historical link is not to denigrate advocates of euthanasia. Rather, through this analogy we are endeavoring to focus on the act itself and not just the actor. The latter is often well meaning.

Thanatologists, given the narrow focus of their field of expertise would, over time, almost certainly develop clinical practice guidelines; these might be tailored to different illness categories, for instance, neurodegenerative diseases and the various cancers with poor prognosis. This process seems to be well underway. For example, a recent paper explores euthanasia requests and practices in a highly particularized context, namely, patients in Belgium dying of lung cancer. 23 If euthanasia is accepted as integral to ‘medical care’, this sort of disease-specific focus will surely expand. One can envisage the emergence of guidelines delineating the complementary roles of physicians and thanatologists. Most physicians (we hope) would eschew any involvement in euthanasia and confine themselves to traditional roles such as diagnosing, estimating prognosis and providing supportive care and symptom control, that is, excellent palliative care—which does not include euthanasia, as some advocates argue it should.

The extent to which principled opponents of euthanasia would be legally ‘excused’ from participating in the steps leading up to fulfilling a patient's request for assisted death is a contentious aspect of the debate. How would the profession balance the requirement for individual physicians to fulfill specific social roles and the need to respect the freedom of conscience of those who, on moral grounds, reject certain options? Physician–philosopher Edmund Pellegrino argues that physicians can refrain from entering into professional relationships that have the potential to erode their moral integrity; he offers strategies to assist the physician in navigating potential conflicts. 24

Psychiatrists and medical ethicists who do not reject euthanasia would be expected to focus on soliciting patient perspectives, exploring options and assessing comprehension, competence and voluntariness—that in making her decision, the patient is free from coercion, duress or undue influence, assuming this is possible. The profession has begun to equip itself with tools to deal with this incipient new clinical reality in jurisdictions which allow euthanasia. Physicians in the USA have been provided with an eight-step algorithm to assist them in discussing assisted suicide with patients who request it. 25 These guidelines were developed immediately after the legalization of PAS in Oregon. It is reasonable to expect that additional decision-making tools will emerge should the practice gain wider societal acceptance. Also, the possible consequences on undergraduate medical education, should it have to include protocols for ending patients' lives, have been explored. 26

Again, we note that the above discussion is included for the sake of comprehensive coverage of the issue of physicians' involvement in euthanasia, were it to be legalized, and whether it could be ethically acceptable ‘medical treatment’ or even ‘therapy’. It is not meant to signal that we see euthanasia as ethically acceptable.

It has been repeatedly found that of all separately identified groups in Western societies, physicians are among the most opposed to involvement in euthanasia. There is substantial indirect evidence to support this claim, even in jurisdictions in which doctor-assisted death is legal. For example, in Oregon, there is a suggestion that some patients have to resort to ‘doctor shopping’ to obtain their lethal medications. The Oregon Public Health Division's annual report for 2011 shows that one physician was responsible for 14 of the requisite prescriptions out of a total of 114 that year. 27 Also, the Netherlands recently approved the launching of mobile euthanasia clinics. A stated reason for this development was that patients' goals in self-determination were being thwarted by physician resistance to providing euthanasia. Not all physicians, including many Dutch colleagues, are on-side with having euthanasia become a medical act.

A questionnaire-based study comparing the opinions of the Dutch general public with that of physicians revealed some marked differences. With respect to the active ending of life for patients with dementia, the level of acceptance was 63% for the public and 6% for physicians. 28 With respect to terminally ill cancer patients, the figures were much higher and less divergent; this may be a consequence of the prolonged experience of euthanasia in cases of terminal illness in the Netherlands. Or, it might be that often survey questions are phrased as, ‘If a person is in terrible pain, should they be given access to euthanasia?’ The respondent must choose between leaving the person in pain and euthanizing them. But this choice is wrongly constructed. The person should be able to choose fully adequate pain management—that is, the ‘death’ of the pain—without having to endorse the intentional infliction of death on the patient. 29 Despite high levels of acceptance by physicians of euthanasia for cancer patients in the Netherlands, recent reports reveal persistent ethical concerns. 30 It is also noteworthy that physicians involved in palliative care, including in Britain, appear to be particularly concerned about legalizing euthanasia. 31

What underlies the medical profession's reluctance to accept euthanasia? There are multiple explanations. Aside from ethical, moral and religious beliefs, one of the most salient and compelling has to do with one's conception of the medical mandate, especially as it relates to healing. Healing is a challenging term to define. Many in our institution (the Faculty of Medicine, McGill University) consider it to be ‘a relational process involving movement towards an experience of integrity and wholeness’. 32 It has been operationally defined as ‘the personal experience of the transcendence of suffering’. 33 A feature of healing important to our thesis is the notion that healing does not require biological integrity. Although it may seem counter intuitive at first glance, it has been pointed out that if a sick person is able to construct new meaning and is able to achieve a greater sense of wholeness, that individual may ‘die healed’. 32 It is undeniably a vastly different concept than curing, although they are not in opposition one to the other. Most physicians accept the healer role as a fundamental and enduring characteristic of the profession. 34 In our undergraduate medical program, this concept is taught using the term ‘physicianship’; it refers to the dual and complementary roles of the physician—the physician as healer and professional. 35 It could be argued that one can remain ‘professional’ even while serving as a collaborator in requested death. On the contrary, many commentators—the American Medical Association is a prime example 36 —believe that it is impossible to do so as a ‘healer’, one who is focused on accompanying the patient on a transformational journey towards personal integrity that transcends the embodied self.

The process of healing in the doctor–patient relationship is poorly understood. We do not have a complete picture of how it is initiated or which clinical skills or abilities are essential in fostering a healing relationship. The literature suggests that healing resides in the quality of interpersonal connections and that it requires a deep respect for the agency of the physician in the therapeutic process. 37 An appreciation of the placebo effect, or in more poetic terms, the ‘doctor as the medicine’, is required. 38 , 39 It is almost certainly linked to the phenomena of transference and counter-transference and it may utilize the power differential for salutary purposes, even if these phenomena operate largely at a covert level.

The patient–doctor relationship is marked by intense ambivalence. Any physician who has initiated a discussion with a patient on the issue of resuscitation or desired level of technical intervention will realize how easily it can be misinterpreted, how quickly it can catalyze existential angst and how thoroughly it can overwhelm hopeful sentiments. Affective turmoil and cognitive dissonance can rapidly ensue. These sorts of cross-purpose exchanges would surely be magnified in the context of discussions regarding euthanasia. Although there may be a productive ‘meeting of the minds’ in any specific doctor–patient dyad, the risks of emotional derailment, self-effacing dependency and irremediable miscommunication should not be minimized. It is inconceivable to us that deep layers of existential suffering would not be activated and exposed by such a discussion. A healing space that can support patients would be unnecessarily deflated. Admittedly, this belief is based on incomplete understandings of the clinical encounter, yet the axiomatic foundation of that encounter is anchored in a 2400-year old tradition. We must consider why we have so jealously guarded that tradition. We could always have abandoned it by accepting euthanasia. Unlike many other current medical–ethical dilemmas, neither death nor euthanasia is a novel issue presented by new technoscience.

Many proponents of euthanasia like to claim that opponents rely on two types of unsound arguments: one based on empirical data and the other anchored in axiology. In the first instance, they allege that the outcomes data available from jurisdictions where euthanasia or assisted suicide has been legalized, suggest that our fears of potential abuse are groundless. They deny that there is a ‘logical’ slippery slope—that the situations in which euthanasia will be available will expand over time—or a ‘practical’ slippery slope—that euthanasia will be used abusively. Pro-euthanasia advocates claim that evolving legislation does not pose a threat to persons with a disability, does not lead to euthanasia without consent, does not invite extension of the practice to vulnerable populations—in short, that it has not become a ‘run-away train’. They usually express satisfaction with individual clinicians' professional restraint and integrity as well as with administrative safe guards. Some suggest that the acceptance of euthanasia results in improvements in traditional palliative care. This belief that it represents a positive force for changing prevailing clinical practices is not based on robust evidence. Moreover, the evidence for the existence of a practical slippery slope is very convincing. This was very recently affirmed by the High Court of Ireland, in a judgment we discuss shortly, in deciding whether prohibiting assisted suicide contravened the Irish Constitution, which it held it did not. 40

A recent dramatic example of the logical slope's gravitational pull is the euthanizing, in December 2012, of 45-year-old twins in Belgium. Deaf since childhood, Marc and Eddy Verbessem were facing the additional disability of blindness. Accepting that they were irremediably suffering, their physician euthanized them. 41 Euthanizing patients with non-terminal conditions, even though it can be legal in Belgium, will surely meet with the disapproval of most physicians. Even within the pro-euthanasia movement, this development may be considered an aberration. Nonetheless, there are increasing numbers of commentators who subscribe to the following philosophy: ‘If a patient is mentally competent and wants to die, his body itself constitutes unwarranted life-support unfairly prolonging his or her mental life’. 42

There are two arguments, both warranting careful scrutiny, frequently advanced in support of physician involvement in euthanasia. The first is that physicians have privileged access to information about their patients' unique perspectives and circumstances, including personal resources and frailties, as well as complex family dynamics. That argument has been undermined by evolving practices. The ‘Oregon Public Health Divisions’ report for 2011 reveals that the median length of the doctor–patient relationship for those who died by PAS was merely 12 weeks (with a range of 1–1379 weeks). 27 It is highly unlikely that a physician would have acquired a sophisticated understanding of a person's values, hopes and fears in the matter of a few weeks. It is even less plausible in the case of the mobile euthanasia units currently being deployed in the Netherlands. The second argument is that physicians are inclined, by temperament and experience, to accompany their patients throughout the illness trajectory, including death. That too is not defensible on the known facts. For example, in Oregon, in the first 3 years of the administration of Oregon's ‘Death with Dignity Act’, physicians were present at approximately half of assisted deaths. By 2005, it was 23%. In 2011, it was a mere 9%. 27 The behaviour of these prescribing physicians is not congruent with the image of physicians represented in that iconic painting by Sir Luke Fildes, bearing the title ‘The Doctor’, and often used to portray empathic witnessing. Pro-euthanasia advocates can come across as rather intrepid in their defense of personal autonomy. Autonomy is the overriding principle that is used to buttress arguments in favor of euthanasia; indeed, it generally runs roughshod over all other considerations. Many pro-euthanasia commentators are disposed to brush off concerns about the impact of accepting ‘radical autonomy’ as always being the overriding value—especially concerns about the risks and harms to vulnerable people and to important shared values, in particular, respect for life at the societal level. A 2012 case in British Columbia manifests all these issues; it involved vulnerable persons, values conflicts and shows the preferencing by the court of the value of individual autonomy in relation to euthanasia. The case originates in a challenge to the Canadian Criminal Code's current prohibition of assisted suicide. 43

Gloria Taylor, a plaintiff in the case, Carter v Canada (Attorney General) 44 , was a person with ALS who requested assisted suicide arguing that as her illness progressed she would be incapable of committing suicide, unaided, due to her physical disability. The judge, Justice Lynn Smith, ruled in the plaintiff's favour on the basis that the prohibition was unconstitutional on the grounds that it contravened both Ms Taylor's constitutional ‘right to life, liberty and security of the person’ (under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) 45 and her right not to be discriminated against as a physically disabled person (under section 15 of the Charter ); and that the prohibition could not be saved (under section 1 of the Charter ), as a reasonable limit on constitutionally protected rights. Consequently, the judge held that the law prohibiting assistance in suicide was not applicable with respect to preventing Ms Taylor and other people in similar circumstances from having such assistance. The judgment is very long and legally complex and is now on appeal. Read as a whole, it strongly supports legalizing PAS and euthanasia.

In that case, the Canadian court reviewed the available evidence from other jurisdictions with liberalised legislation and concluded that there was no evidence of abuse. This Court also reviewed the same evidence and has drawn exactly the opposite conclusions. The medical literature documents specific examples of abuse which, even if exceptional, are nonetheless deeply disturbing. Moreover, contrary to the views of the Canadian court, there is evidence from this literature that certain groups (such as disabled neonates and disabled or demented elderly persons) are vulnerable to abuse. Above all, the fact that the number of LAWER (‘life-ending acts without explicit request’) cases remains strikingly high in jurisdictions which have liberalised their law on assisted suicide (Switzerland, Netherlands and Belgium) – ranging from 0.4% to over 1% of all deaths in these jurisdictions according to the latest figures – without any obvious official response speaks for itself as to the risks involved’. 40

One can also question Justice Smith's conclusions that PAS is not inherently unethical; that individuals' right to autonomy takes priority over the value of respect for life; that sanctity of life is only a religious value; that there is no relevant ethical or moral difference between refusals of life-support treatment that result in the death of the patient and euthanasia; and, that the availability of legalized PAS is necessary ‘medical treatment’ for some.

Justice Smith's justification for allowing euthanasia is largely based on a selective application of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms jurisprudence 45 and depends upon her being able to distinguish the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Rodriguez case. 46 The latter held, in a four to three split among the judges, that the Canadian Criminal Code's prohibition on assisted suicide 43 was constitutionally valid.

Invoking the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , Justice Smith ruled that Ms Taylor's right to life was infringed by the prohibition of assisted suicide because she might conclude that ‘she needs to take her own life while physically able to do so, at an earlier date than she would find necessary if she could be assisted’. 44 We believe that this would strike many as a straw man argument. It is to convert a right to life to a right to assisted suicide, by accepting as a breach of a right to life that a person will commit suicide sooner, if not given access to assisted suicide. But validating assistance in committing suicide hardly upholds a right to life.

Like everybody else, Ms Taylor has a right to refuse treatment even if that means she will die sooner than she otherwise would. Justice Smith accepts the plaintiffs' argument that there is no ethical or moral difference between euthanasia and refusals of life-support treatment that result in death and, therefore, both should be legal. But a right to refuse treatment is based in a right to inviolability—a right not to be touched, including by treatment, without one's informed consent. It is not a right to die or a right to be killed. At most, people have a negative content right to be allowed to die, not any right to positive assistance to achieve that outcome. A person with Ms Taylor's illness trajectory will surely die—even more precipitously if they decline many of the interventions described in the hypothetical patient with ALS we introduced earlier on. (Subsequent to the judgment, Ms Taylor died a natural death from an infection). It is also important to underline that current medical practices enable physicians to attenuate much of the suffering that may accompany the progressive loss of function and well-being in advanced ALS.

The judge appears also to accept the argument that legalizing euthanasia enhances palliative care. This goes some way towards treating euthanasia, as some have termed it, ‘the last act of good palliative care’. 47 It is also consistent with the ‘no-difference-between-them approach’ to a spectrum of end-of-life medical interventions. Euthanasia is confused with interventions, such as pain management and rights to refuse treatment, which are ethically and legally acceptable, and an argument is thus set up that, if we are to act consistently, euthanasia must also be ethically and legally acceptable. It is tantamount to legalizing euthanasia through confusion. 48

In the policy, ‘palliative care’ is defined as ‘a qualified medical practitioner, or a person acting under the general supervision of a qualified medical practitioner, administering medication or other treatment to a terminally ill patient with the intention of relieving pain or suffering, even though this may hasten death’. The policy states that that conduct, ‘when provided or administered according to accepted ethical medical standards, is not subject to criminal prosecution’. 44

In other words, the policy's definition of palliative care can be expansively interpreted to place euthanasia in same category as other end-of-life interventions which may hasten death.

For the sake of exploration of the issue, let us assume momentarily that euthanasia is medical treatment. What might flow from this?

Classifying euthanasia as medical treatment would affect the scope of disclosure of information necessary to obtain informed consent. A physician must disclose to the patient all reasonably indicated medical treatments as well as their risks and benefits. It would now have to include euthanasia. Even most pro-euthanasia advocates regard it as unethical for a physician to introduce the possibility of euthanasia. Currently, it is generally accepted that any discussion of it must be initiated by the patient.

It would also mean that to obtain informed consent to euthanasia, all reasonably indicated treatments would need to be offered and they would certainly include all necessary palliative care, in particular, fully adequate pain management. Many of those advocating for euthanasia posit euthanasia and palliative care as alternatives, but informed consent to euthanasia could not be obtained unless good palliative care was available. This is not available to a majority of people who die in Canada; it has been estimated that less than 30% have access to even the most minimal form of palliative care. 49

As well, Canadian psychiatrist Dr Harvey Max Chochinov, who specializes in psychiatric treatment for dying people, has shown that there are significant fluctuations in the will to live, even as death is imminent. 50 The impact of these findings, as well as conditions such as depression, on the possibility of obtaining valid informed consent to euthanasia would need to be fully addressed.

Another crucially important issue is that, if PAS and euthanasia are ‘medical treatment’, then surrogate decision-makers have the authority to consent to them for the patient. Their decisions must be based on either their knowledge of what the patient would have wanted or, if those wishes are unknown, their belief that these interventions are in the ‘best interests’ of the patient. Would mentally incompetent people and those with dementia or disabled newborn babies, as is now the case in the Netherlands under the Groningen protocol, be eligible for ‘therapeutic homicide’? 51

Yet another issue is what would be the indications for euthanasia as medical treatment and who could access it if were legalized? Justice Smith, citing an expert witness for the plaintiffs, refers to ‘the end-of-life population’. 44 This is a term used in the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel Report on End of Life Decision - Making. 52 In the report, this population is defined as those persons on a continuum beginning with any serious diagnosis or injury. This represents an expansion of a term, ‘end-of-life’, traditionally used for those inevitably in the last days of life, to all people with serious chronic conditions, resulting from illness or injury, that may be fatal in the course of time. And, of course, it is notoriously difficult to predict with any certainty the timing of even obviously terminal illnesses. It is precisely the type of ‘slippery slope’ that we fear emerging from the ‘limited’ exception, as defined by Justice Smith. It will likely culminate in more decisions similar to that taken in the case of the Verbessem brothers in Belgium.

It is also pertinent to point out that Canada continues to fund and promote programs that aim to prevent suicide. If suicide is conferred the status of a right or is held to be acceptable medical treatment it would be difficult to reconcile this situation with the presence of programs that aim to actively thwart it. Some resolve this dilemma by trying to banish the word ‘suicide’ from the debate, in favor of the phrase ‘assisted dying’. Marcia Angell, erstwhile editor of the NEJM and a fervent proponent of PAS, endorses the notion that ‘assisted dying’ can be distinguished from ‘typical suicide’. The latter is described as being undertaken by someone with a normal life expectancy, whereas the former is carried out in someone ‘who is near death from natural causes anyway’. 53 They are going to die anyway, so what does it matter?! We believe that this reasoning is rather disingenuous and that it can result in a dishonouring of that segment remaining in someone's life, whether this is measured in minutes or months, and could deprive them of something as ephemeral as dreams and hopes. It certainly negates the idea of dying as our last great act of living. 54

Finally, a decision classifying euthanasia as medical treatment could have impact far outside the context of issues directly related to death and dying. For example, in Canada, the federal and provincial governments' respective powers are allocated under the Canadian Constitution. The criminal law power belongs to the federal parliament and the power to govern health and social services to the provincial legislatures. If euthanasia was defined as medical treatment, the federal parliament's prohibition of it in the Criminal Code could be invalid by reason of its trespassing on the provincial jurisdiction to govern health and social services. That is one reason that the Quebec College of Physicians and Surgeons, which supports legalizing euthanasia, argues that it is medical treatment. Likewise, the Quebec Legislative Assembly committee, which issued a report, ‘Dying with Dignity’, 55 adopts the same argument. From past experience, we expect that Quebec might challenge the constitutional validity of the Criminal Code prohibition on this basis. However, a legal committee, set up by the Quebec government, has proposed another approach. It has just reported on how Quebec could operationalize giving doctors legal immunity for carrying out euthanasia, including by the Attorney General of Quebec instructing Crown Prosecutors not to prosecute them under the Criminal Code for doing so, provided they comply with certain guidelines. 56 In either case we could see Quebec becoming ‘separate’ from the rest of Canada on this critically important issue.

In pondering medicine's possible involvement in euthanasia, we must foreground those aspects of the medical mandate that are immutable and eternally relevant. We believe these to be the constant nature of ‘illness’, changeless across time, place and culture, and the resultant obligations of the healer. It is important to appreciate how illness affects persons in all spheres of their lives. Patients become intensely vulnerable, impressionable and open to abuse. Pellegrino has summarized the nature of the clinical encounter eloquently as ‘a peculiar constellation of urgency, intimacy, unavoidability, unpredictability and extraordinary vulnerability within which trust must be given’. 57 This vulnerability sets up an intense and enduring obligation of physicians; they must respond to the wounded person with authenticity, compassion and moral agency. The latter demands that physicians harness and deploy their unique influences and persuasive powers in a particular manner. The essential nature of physicianship has evolved over time in a direction that recognizes the extraordinary vulnerability of patients and guards ferociously against their exploitation. In part, this has been achieved by imposing inviolable limits on the physician's terrain of action. Moreover, we believe that, even if one accepted that euthanasia was ethically acceptable—which we do not—it opens up too many doors for abuse.

The medical profession has arrived at a crossroad; it must choose whether to embrace euthanasia as medical treatment, as a logical extension of end-of-life care, or it can reject the redefinition of its healing mandate that this would entail. We believe, that looking back in the future, the euthanasia events of the present time will be seen as a turning point, not only for the profession of medicine, but also for societies. Crossing the line in the sand articulated by Hippocrates, that as a physician ‘I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect’, would result in the ‘doctor as healer’ becoming the ‘doctor as executioner’. In short, healing and euthanizing are simply not miscible and euthanasia can never be considered ‘medical treatment’.

Donald Boudreau was an Arnold P. Gold Foundation Associate Professor of Medicine when this manuscript was written and submitted. He is grateful for the financial support the foundation has provided in the past and requests that readers appreciate the opinions expressed herein are his personal views and not necessarily reflective of the perspectives of the Foundation, its staff, affiliates or benefactors.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

• suicide, assisted
• medical management

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1471-8391
• Print ISSN 0007-1420
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

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

Dr. Heisenberg

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

1 pages / 670 words

4 pages / 1865 words

2 pages / 1011 words

1 pages / 484 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, 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 [...]

Euthanasia, the practice of ending the life of a suffering patient through the use of barbiturate or paralytic injections, remains a highly controversial medical procedure. While it is legal in the majority of European Union [...]

Euthanasia is the act of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. It is a controversial topic that has been debated for centuries due to its ethical, legal, and social implications. This essay will provide an [...]

Darren, Sweeper. "Euthanasia - Pros and Cons of Mercy Killing." (n.d.). 2010. Web. "Definition of Euthanasia." 1998. Web. Fletcher, Joseph. "The Courts and Euthanasia." Law, Medicine & Health Care 15.4 (1987/1988): 223-230. [...]

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 [...]

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. [...]

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Euthanasia: agreeing to disagree?

Søren holm.

1 Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, School of Law, Williamson Building, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL UK

2 Section for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

In discussions about the legalisation of active, voluntary euthanasia it is sometimes claimed that what should happen in a liberal society is that the two sides in the debate “agree to disagree”. This paper explores what is entailed by agreeing to disagree and shows that this is considerably more complicated than what is usually believed to be the case. Agreeing to disagree is philosophically problematic and will often lead to an unstable compromise.

In discussions about the legalisation of active, voluntary euthanasia performed by medical doctors 1 it is sometimes claimed that what should happen in a liberal society is (merely?) that the two sides in the debate “agree to disagree” or “split the difference” (Huxtable 2007 ); and the Netherlands is taken as an example of this kind of accommodation. Agreeing to disagree will allow persons to pursue their own idea of the good life and the good death both as patients and as health care professionals, it will calm the often vociferous and unnecessarily antagonistic public debate, it will exhibit state impartiality and it will lead to a resolution that is the right one in an area where significant liberty interests of patients are at stake.

The underlying idea is that even if we cannot agree on whether euthanasia is ethically acceptable we can reach a societal accommodation that allows those who can find a willing doctor to end their life by euthanasia without fear of criminal prosecution.

The present paper will problematise this account of the virtues and effects of “agreeing to disagree” through an analysis of what that type of societal accommodation actually entails in the context of euthanasia.

The first part of the paper will briefly rehearse some philosophical arguments against compromise or accommodation as a viable option in a context of deep value conflict about an important ethical issue.

The second part will then more concretely analyse (1) what the pro-euthanasia side wants to achieve by the legalisation of euthanasia and (2) what the anti-euthanasia side is worried about in relation to legalisation.

The third part will then show that “agreeing to disagree” is significantly more complicated and fraught with problems than is sometimes assumed.

Throughout the paper no position will be taken as to whether euthanasia is in general, or in specific instances ethically justifiable. The analysis will primarily be drawing on resources from political philosophy and political science and not from moral philosophy.

The paper will also not try to provide a final answer to the question of whether “agreeing to disagree” is a philosophically coherent position to advocate given the strong underlying views on both sides of the debate. But it is worth noting that for someone, such as Dame Mary Warnock believes that doctors who refuse euthanasia requests are ‘Genuinely wicked’ it would be strange to agree to disagree and difficult to see what the agreement could be about (News Letter 2009 ).

Agreeing to disagree and deep value conflict

Within a modern liberal society it is arguable that the best way of resolving policy differences is through some form of deliberative democracy. The parties sit down, trash out their differences and try to argue their way to an outcome that is either accepted or at least acceptable to all participants in the process (Guttman and Thompson 1990 ; Guttman 1993 ; Habermas 1992 ; Habermas 1995 ; Rawls 1996 ; Holm 2006 ).

At both the theoretical and the practical level this kind of process is likely to work best when the different views of the parties stem only from the fact that they have different interests. Such differences can be mediated through reflection and/or compromise.

If, however the differences are differences in values it may be more difficult to achieve a resolution or a compromise. Values are often more intimately connected with the participant’s ultimate world view than interests are and they more often involve metaphysical commitments (McCarthy 1996 ). 2 This is, for instance quite obvious in the abortion debate where one of the issues at stake is the metaphysics of persons and of personal identity.

There are circumstances where disagreements about values are likely to generate irresolvable standoffs. This is especially likely to happen if one or both of the positions involve what John Woods calls:

“Philosophy’s Most Difficult Problem . Let A  = <{ P 1,…., Pn }, C > be a valid argument, a sequence in which C is a logical consequence of proceeding steps. Philosophy’s Most Difficult Problem is that of adjudicating in a principled way the conflict between supposing that A is a sound demonstration of a counterintuitive truth, as opposed to seeing it as a counterexample of its premises.” (Woods 2000 , p. 205).

Discussions about euthanasia often involve exactly this kind of problem. It is, for instance well known that the personhood approaches to moral status involved in many pro-euthanasia arguments generate highly counterintuitive results in relation to beginning of life and end of life issues and that these very results are often seen as a reductio of such approaches by their opponents.

If, furthermore the values on both sides are firmly entrenched we may reach a standoff that excludes negotiability, where the mere suggestion that there is a possible compromise is seen as grotesque and improper.

What is the legalisation of euthanasia supposed to achieve?

Let us, despite the philosophical problems raised above move on and ask what proponents of euthanasia want to achieve through the legalisation of the activity.

The most minimal legalisation of euthanasia would simply involve the decriminalisation of the activity, but supporters of euthanasia understandably want more, because mere decriminalisation will not in itself entail that euthanasia is available.

Decriminalisation is, for instance, compatible with strong professional condemnation and disciplinary action and even with expulsion from the profession of those who perform the acts. The UK regulator of medical doctors the General Medical Council (GMC) does, for instance, oblige doctors to observe duties that they are not legally obliged to observe (e.g. acting as good Samaritans) and it requires them to abstain from acts that are not illegal (e.g. looking at legal internet pornography on work computers). Doctors who breach GMC guidance in these areas may lose their license to practice, even if they have done nothing that could remotely be construed as illegal or criminal. Supporters of euthanasia will therefore not only require that euthanasia is decriminalised but also that it is deemed to be acceptable professional practice and are furthermore likely to require that those who choose to practise euthanasia within the agreed boundaries are not discriminated against in employment decisions.

This is part of a more general feature of the pro-euthanasia position. Those who hold this position view euthanasia as morally justified and therefore also want it to become socially normalised. For them euthanasia is just a normal medical service; and in public health care systems or systems with a large component of third party payment supporters of euthanasia will also want euthanasia to be conceived of as a normal health care service in relation to payment. For instance, if a General Practitioner (GP) attends a patient at home to perform euthanasia the GP should be reimbursed as for any other home visit of similar complexity.

The requirement of normalisation of euthanasia also reaches beyond the health care setting to issues such as death certification, burial and insurance law. For the proponent of euthanasia, death following euthanasia should be treated as a ‘normal death’ and not for instance as a kind of suicide or a potentially illegal killing. 3

What worries does legalisation of euthanasia raise?

Opponents of euthanasia share the concern about the effect of legalisation on the status of health care professionals, but they are likely to focus on the other side of the coin, i.e. the effects in relation to those who do not want to perform euthanasia. Any euthanasia legislation is likely to contain a conscientious objection provision, but this may not be enough to protect doctors and other health care professionals in the long run. After the legalisation of abortion it has become difficult for doctors who do not want to perform abortions to specialise in gynaecology and obstetrics and similar difficulties might occur in some specialties in relation to euthanasia. There has also been a tendency in some jurisdictions to interpret conscientious objection clauses quite narrowly both with regard to the type of health care personnel that is covered and with regard to the kind of involvement that a person can object to participate in. Opponents of euthanasia are therefore likely to require stronger protections than mere conscientious objection.

A related issue is that a right to conscientious objection is often combined with a professional duty to refer the patient to another practitioner willing to perform the act in question. But for someone who thinks that euthanasia is closely akin to murder such a duty is highly problematic.

More generally those who are opposed to euthanasia will also be opposed to the general normalisation of euthanasia as a medical service. They are likely to want it to be kept separate and special, and may be unlikely to be willing to have it included in normal reimbursement mechanisms. This may be combined with an unwillingness to contribute financially through insurance premiums or taxation to a practice seen as morally abhorrent.

In relation to resources in the health care system there may also be a worry about whether introducing euthanasia as an option undermines or weakens claims to have expensive life prolonging treatment provided, or whether in the long run a presumption would be established that choosing euthanasia was the morally right choice in some circumstances of severe resource constraints.

Opponents of euthanasia are also likely to have a distinct worry in relation to whether both sides involved in the societal bargain are willing to let it stand. Is “agreeing to disagree” about active, voluntary euthanasia performed by a medical doctor a stable accommodation or just a staging post to the legalisation of other forms of euthanasia. This is, paradoxically a concern that is at least partially fuelled by the writings of academic bioethicists and legal scholars in relation to end of life decisions and abortion. A typical type of argument in these writings is a consistency argument of the form “society already allows X, therefore it is inconsistent not to allow Y which is currently prohibited”. There are many problems with consistency arguments of this type, but they are never the less often rhetorically powerful (Holm 2003 ). It is obvious that the legalisation of euthanasia will enable a variety of new consistency arguments to be brought forward. What is going to be legalised is, for instance not initially “euthanasia on demand” but euthanasia in cases of terminal disease with significant, irremediable suffering. But the underlying justification for allowing euthanasia only in this specific class of circumstances is inherently unstable because it relies on elements of both respect for autonomy and the relief of suffering.

Why is agreeing to disagree difficult?

From the analysis so far it has become clear that there are several problems with implementing “agreeing to disagree” as a societal accommodation or compromise in relation to euthanasia, even if we believed it made philosophical sense to advocate such a position.

The first problem is that whereas it might be possible to agree to disagree about the very narrow issue of decriminalisation of euthanasia, it is much more difficult to agree to disagree about the normalisation of euthanasia as a type of medical/health care intervention. It is practically difficult to confine the legalisation of euthanasia to mere permission. There will almost always also be an element of acceptance in any legalisation. 4

The second problem is that the situation established by agreeing to disagree is unstable. It satisfies neither side in the debate and there is therefore always a temptation to try to disturb the equilibrium and get a little more; and a possible lingering suspicion that that is exactly what the other side will try to do.

The third problem is that any move from the now prevailing status quo in most countries, i.e. that euthanasia is illegal will be a move that only involves loss seen from the point of view of a strict opponent of euthanasia. For such and opponent there is nothing to be gained in the move itself and the only incentive to agree to disagree is if it is believed that the legal position after agreeing to disagree will be more restrictive than any position that would be reached without agreeing to this form of accommodation.

If the position in the Netherlands can rightly be described as “agreeing to disagree”, and I do not want to claim that this is an accurate or adequate description, then it is a position that has been reached through a long historical development. It has been reached in a specific societal context and there is evidence that what the Dutch have agreed to disagree about has changed over time. It is not obvious that other societies can reach the same kind of accommodation in one single step.

For the philosopher the main problem with “agreeing to disagree” as a policy solution is that it requires both sides to suspend judgement on whether the counterintuitive consequences of accepting, for instance a personhood based justification of the permissibility of voluntary, active euthanasia should count as a reductio or should instead be seen as pointing to future goals for policy development. It furthermore requires the philosophical proponents of euthanasia to acquiesce in what they see as illiberal legislation prohibiting euthanasia in circumstances where it should be allowed; and it requires the philosophical opponents of euthanasia to accept that a kind of killing they think is profoundly unethical should be allowed in law. We can see how philosophers on both sides might “agree to disagree” as citizens, but if they continue to believe, as they almost inevitably must do that they have the correct argument on their side, agreeing to disagree will create significant cognitive dissonance and unease.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

1 In the following all unqualified uses of the term “euthanasia” refer to active, voluntary euthanasia performed by a doctor.

2 Let us in passing note that any call for the exclusion of metaphysical commitments from ethical debates about human life and death is potentially highly problematic. First because every participant in the debate has metaphysical commitments that influences their position and second because the exclusion of metaphysical commitments from the debate is likely to be a bigger burden for some participants than for others.

3 This is exactly why the “Dutch solution”, leaving euthanasia as technically illegal but not prosecuted if the criteria are fulfilled is often criticised by proponents of euthanasia.

4 Even mere decriminalisation of euthanasia by medical doctors could be seen as conveying some form of social acceptance by classifying the act as a medical act and thereby lending it some of the lustre (if such lustre exists) of medicine and the medical profession.

• Doctors who refuse euthanasia ‘wicked’, expert claims. News Letter, 06.01.2009 http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Ignoring-a-death-wish-is.4845993.jp .
• Guttman Amy. Democracy. In: Goodin RE, Pettit P, editors. A companion to contemporary political philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell; 1993. pp. 411–421. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guttman Amy, Thompson Denis. Moral conflict and political consensus. Ethics. 1990; 101 :64–88. doi: 10.1086/293260. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Habermas Jürgen. Faktizität und Geltung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Habermas Jürgen. Reconciliation through the public use of reasons: Remarks on John Rawls’s political liberalism. Journal of Philosophy. 1995; 92 :109–131. doi: 10.2307/2940842. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holm, Søren. 2003. “Parity of Reasoning” arguments in bioethics—some methodological considerations. In Scratching the surface of bioethics, eds M. Häyry, T. Takala, 47–56, Amsterdam: Rodopi.
• Holm Søren. Policy making in pluralistic society. In: Steinbock B, editor. Oxford handbook of bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006. pp. 153–174. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huxtable Richard. Euthanasia, ethics and the law—from conflict to compromise. London: Routledge-Cavendish; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCarthy Thomas. Legitimacy and diversity: Dialectical reflections on analytical distinctions. Cardozo Law Review. 1996; 17 :1083–1125. [ Google Scholar ]
• News Letter. 2009. Doctors who refuse euthanasia ‘wicked’, expert claims. http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Ignoring-a-death-wish-is.4845993.jp Accessed 12 May 2010.
• Rawls, John. 1996. Political liberalism (with a new introduction and the “reply to Habermas”) . New York: Columbia University Press.
• Woods John. Privatizing death: Metaphysical discouragements of ethical thinking. Midwest Studies in Philosophy. 2000; 24 :199–218. doi: 10.1111/1475-4975.00030. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

158 Euthanasia Topics & Essay Examples

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

• 📑 Aspects to Cover in a Euthanasia Essay

🏆 Best Euthanasia Essay Examples & Topics

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

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

📑 Aspects to Cover in an Euthanasia Essay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

• Ethical Dilemma Titles
• Meaning of Life Essay Ideas
• Moral Dilemma Paper Topics
• Afterlife Research Topics
• Belief Questions
• Lifespan Development Essay Titles
• Ethics Ideas
• Human Rights Essay Ideas
• Suffering Essay Topics
• Morality Research Ideas
• Death Penalty Questions
• Healthcare Questions
• Suicide Topics
• Constitution Research Ideas
• Social Justice Essay Ideas