Physician assisted suicide and euthanasia have been one of the most socially debated topics, not only in the United States but worldwide. The issue is not only a social debate but has taken rise in professional settings such as the medical and legal communities. Physician assisted suicide is the voluntary ending of one’s life with the assistance of a medical physician, whom directly or indirectly provides the means to a competent patient for an intended death. Euthanasia is the act of a physician ending a patient’s life due to unbearable pain, or suffering from an incurable illness. The difference between the two is that physician assisted suicide is when a physician provides the means for a patient to intentionally end their life, and euthanasia is when the physician ends the patient’s life by knowingly providing the means, for example administering a lethal injection. Despite the differences in how involved the physician may be, there have been several debates surrounding this topic. Many believe that in most cases this controversial topic has become solely an issue of ethics, but in reality physician assisted suicide is a prevalent matter in today’s society because it involves pressing issues such as religious beliefs, ethics, and legality. Within these subunits I plan on discussing the arguments against and for the legalization of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia.

For decades religion and medicine have clashed concerning the topics of life and death. For physicians such cases like physician assisted suicide and euthanasia becomes an issue because they wish to provide the best medical care for a patient, while respecting the patient’s morals and religious beliefs. In regards to this topic that eventually leads to the termination of one’s life, religious arguments usually hold a very rigid standpoint within the debate. Most people believe that all religions are against the act of physician assisted suicide, but in actuality there are two varying sides of this religious spectrum. In the United States there are a vast amount of religions practiced, ranging from Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and much more. Being that there is such a vast amount of religious practices, many differences in beliefs, viewpoints and practices relating to life and death emerge. One side of this religious spectrum withhold religions that believe that an individual reserves the right to their autonomy. In contrast, the opposing side believes that the authority to decide between life and death resides only in the hands of the creator, being a higher spiritual being. According to Burdette and Hill (2005), religious groups such as Protestants and Methodists side with the autonomy argument in the case of life and death. Although they do believe in God being the main source of guidance and direction, they also believe strongly in individuals being able to decide for themselves how they prefer to manage their end of life care. In contrary to this point of view, other religions such as Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, and many more have much more rigid beliefs on this concept. Followers of these religions mainly believe that God has the ultimate authority over life and death, meaning that mankind should not use their free will to interfere with this natural process. Individuals of these religious faiths argue that the complete power should be placed in the hands of God and that an individual interfering in the course of death goes against God’s authority. In the instance of religion, despite the fact that many believe there are specific guidelines to follow concerning life and death, there still remains a difference in the way these guidelines are interpreted resulting in discrepancy amongst individuals of specific faiths.

Many people have joined in on the conversation of legalizing acts of physician assisted suicide, and the ethical aspects of this debate have been a prevailing issue. One of the greatest debates of this topic has to do with ethics, many question if it is truly ethical for a physician to intentionally withdraw or withhold life sustaining treatment. Arguments against such practices propose the issue this practice has on how we value life, the passive and active distinction, and the possible complications that can arise. Arguments supporting physician assisted suicide and euthanasia propose that restricting such practices limits an individual’s autonomy and individual liberties. The critics of the matter form an argument that correlates to the rigid religious standpoint, that practices such as physician assisted suicide and euthanasia ultimately violate the sanctity of human life. Sanctity of life refers to human life as a gift from God that should be deeply treasured and exalted; these individuals propose that these forms of man-made decisions violate the value of human life. Another viewpoint proposed by those against the issue is the idea that legalization of a life ending procedure such as physician assisted suicide and euthanasia can result in a series of future implications like abuse. These individuals stand firm on their point that vulnerable individuals will be put at risk if a life threatening process is enabled. In this case they believe that helpless patients who do not have proper health care can be persuaded or negatively influenced to result in life ending alternatives. In contrary to these opposing arguments there have been ethical points that also support the legalization of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. In defense of the practice, individuals claim that by restricting physician assisted suicide and euthanasia an individual’s autonomy is being blatantly disregarded and violated. This argument proposes that all competent individuals reserve the right to make rational decisions concerning their end of life care, which is a personal decision one has the right to make. A suffering patient with no other options of pain relief or cures of an illness, should be able to decide if they wish to conclude their suffering with death. Relating to the point of sanctity of human life, those in support of the practice argue that along with life comes dignity and after an unbearable amount of pain and suffering, patients lose a part of themselves. Therefore, if this aspect of life is being painfully drained out of an individual, the defenders argue that suffering patients should have the authority to liberate themselves from suffering through death. One final argument that is also proposed within this ethical component is that by the state enforcing laws to prohibit this act, it deprives individuals of their liberties. In this argument they believe that for a suffering patient, death can be an essential component to set themselves free, and by restricting this decision the laws would only be constricting a patient to continuous suffering, which is not a life anyone would want to continue. Both sides of the argument present reasonable arguments in rebuttal to one another, which contributes to why physician assisted suicide and euthanasia are such controversial issues that question the legality of such practices.

The legality of this controversial topic is the focal point of this debate; the matter of whether or not physician assisted suicide should be legalized is what has driven the rise of this issue to a national dispute. Of course there are two opposing sides of this debate: those who are for the legalization, and those against the legalization of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. From a legal standpoint the issues presented are the idea of a “slippery slope” and the how this legalization causes conflict in the medical aspect, specifically focusing on the physicians role in the process and how the Hippocratic oath effects the decision of legality. According to Benatar (2011) “…if some specific kind of action (such as euthanasia) is permitted, then society will be inexorably led (‘down the slippery slope’) to permitting other actions that are morally wrong.” This slippery slope argument is the concept that the moral boundaries are being pushed in a negative direction, and if physician assisted suicide is made legal, this will pave the way for other morally wrong actions to be socially accepted. Opponents of this ideal argue that an individual should not be forced to continue in painful suffering; they believe the patient should hold the right to make the decisions to free themselves from these miseries and the denial of this imposes on an individual’s freedom. Another proposed argument is the clash of a practice like physician assisted suicide and the Hippocratic oath. The Hippocratic oath is an oath taken by physicians that states the guidelines, obligations and standards to abide by throughout their medical career. Within this oath individuals pledge to do no harm, but in the case of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia, a physician is actively or in-actively providing the means for a patient’s death which goes against the “do no harm clause” within the oath. Defenders argue that this clause can mean “do no intentional harm”; they believe that physicians take their patient’s health in best interests and that relieving a patient from pain and suffering is a way of preserving these interests and maintaining their role as a “healer”. The differences in interpretations have led to different rationales and understandings of the role the physician plays in assisted death and euthanasia.

In the United States there are only seven states that have legalized physician assisted suicide, and there are still remaining states where the practice is illegal. The issue is still a controversial topic that has emerged into a national debate. There are many different components of the debate the religious, ethical, and legal points of views all obtain aspects that have been argued. Many believe that religion holds a firm standpoint within this debate, but in reality there have been arguments presented from a religious spectrum in support and against physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. Ethics has also been one of the focal points that has contributed to the debates formed within this controversial issue. The value of an individual’s life, liberties, and autonomy have been points that have contributed to the moral understanding of this topic. Physician assisted suicide and euthanasia are still prevalent issues of legality across the United States. The role of the physician and the pledge made in the Hippocratic oath,  have led to the difference in interpretations that contribute to the controversy of this issue. There are a vast amount of factors that come into play regarding such a crucial topic, because the decision of making this practice legal can affect millions of lives across the United States.

Work Cited

1.  Benatar D. (2011). A legal right to die: responding to slippery slope and abuse arguments. Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 18(5), 206-7.

2. Burdette, A., Hill, T., & Moulton, B. (2005). Religion and Attitudes toward Physician-Assisted Suicide and Terminal Palliative Care. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44(1), 79-93.

3. Deschepper, R., Distelmans, W., & Bilsen, J. (2014). Requests for euthanasia/physician-assisted suicide on the basis of mental suffering: vulnerable patients or vulnerable physicians?. JAMA psychiatry, 71(6), 617-618.

4. Messerli, J. (n.d.). Physician Assisted Suicide (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against, Advantages & Disadvantages of Euthanasia or Doctor-Assisted Suicide).

5. Sulmasy, D. P., Travaline, J. M., Mitchell, L. A., & Ely, E. W. (2016). Non-faith-based arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. The Linacre quarterly, 83(3), 246-257.

6. Tallis, R. C. (2005). Hippocratic oaths: medicine and its discontents. Clinical Medicine, 5(2), 186-186.