Essay On Physician Assisted Suicide

The ethical and legal implications of Physician assisted suicide (PAS) have been debated for centuries. Many countries around the world, including the UK, see suicidality as a punishable crime; however, despite this long-held position of criminalising it, opinions on assisted suicide remain fiercely divided (citation). Although the British Medical Association (BMA) has adapted a neutral stance on assisted suicide, it is important to understand that the BMA believes that ongoing improvements in palliative care allow patients to die with dignity and legalizing such behaviour will lead to an unfair divide between medical professionals who participate and those who do not (citation). This essay will examine both sides of the argument by exploring

It is argued that assisted suicide violates the deontological principle because it contradicts one's moral values and the sanctity of life (citation). The person actively assisting breaks the moral law due to their intentions to end a sacred life. According to John Keown, author of Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy: An Argument Against Legalisation, the main argument against assisted suicide is that it would be open to abuse and could lead to a ‘slippery slope’ effect, where increasing numbers of people would be coerced into choosing assisted suicide. He argues that it would be difficult to ensure that vulnerable people are not put under pressure to end their lives and that it would be hard to ensure that it is genuinely voluntary. Furthermore, assisted suicide would undermine the patient-doctor relationship, which is based on trust and the belief that the doctor will always act in the patient’s best interests. PAS simply violates the principle of non-maleficence which conveys that a medical professional should act to minimise harm to their patients. Despite assisted suicide being in accordance with the pillar of beneficence as it relieves a patient’s suffering, it contradicts the pillar of non-maleficence as it directly causes

From the perspective of autonomy and beneficence, assisted suicide will give patients the right in choosing to end their suffering and dying with dignity (citation). In support of PAS, some emphasise the principle of consequentialism, although the patient dies, the pain and suffering is reduced, medical cost is minimised which allows the healthcare system to utilise resources effectively and efficiently towards a greater number of people. In addition, a consequentialist would argue the current laws are causing more harm than good as currently it is estimated that 300-650 terminally ill patients commit suicide with 3000 to 6500 attempting to do so in the UK (citation). It is important to note that despite the current laws, some critically unwell patients are making decisions to end their lives, in a way that is neither humane nor painless. The current laws force the unwell to end their lives alone, without any medical supervision and methods of a painless death. Having said that, if PAS is legalised and regulated, it could provide a more peaceful and painless route for critically unwell patients; ultimately leading to a decrease in both their suffering and their loved