essay about against euthanasia

Arguments against Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide

This essay about the ethical and societal concerns surrounding euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) examines the significant implications of legalizing these practices. It highlights how such measures could potentially undermine trust in the medical profession, where doctors are traditionally seen as protectors of life. The piece also explores the slippery slope argument, suggesting that expanding criteria for euthanasia could diminish the focus on improving mental health and palliative care. Additionally, it addresses the risks of coercion and undue influence on vulnerable individuals, emphasizing the need to protect those who might feel pressured into making life-ending decisions. Cultural and religious perspectives on the sanctity of life are discussed, reinforcing the idea that interventions should prioritize enhancing life quality rather than hastening death. The essay argues for strengthening support systems that enhance life quality for all individuals.

How it works

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) have sparked intense debate across various spheres of society, raising complex ethical questions and concerns about the implications of such practices. Despite arguments favoring the right to die with dignity, there are robust counterpoints that caution against the adoption of these measures.

One of the foremost concerns is the integrity and fundamental role of the medical profession. Historically, the ethos of healthcare providers is to preserve life and alleviate suffering without causing harm. Introducing the practice of ending life as a medical option could potentially warp this perception, leading to a diminished trust in healthcare professionals.

Such a shift might make patients question whether their well-being is genuinely at the forefront of their doctor’s priorities.

Additionally, there’s the slippery slope argument. Initially intended for terminal illnesses, the criteria for euthanasia and PAS might gradually expand to include less critical conditions, potentially normalizing suicide as a solution for various lesser adversities. This could lead to a reduction in the development and funding of comprehensive mental health and palliative care services, which are crucial for improving quality of life.

Vulnerability and coercion are also significant ethical issues. There’s a real danger that societal, economic, or familial pressures could influence an individual’s decision-making capacity regarding their own life. Particularly at risk are those in socioeconomically disadvantaged situations, the elderly, or those with disabilities, who might feel an undue burden to opt for euthanasia or PAS.

Furthermore, many cultural and religious frameworks uphold the sanctity of life, advocating for natural death processes. These perspectives argue that the act of taking life, regardless of the circumstances, conflicts with the intrinsic value attributed to human existence. This viewpoint maintains that life should be preserved and that interventions should focus on support and palliative care, enhancing life quality rather than shortening its duration.

In essence, while the argument for euthanasia and PAS might seem to offer a compassionate choice for those suffering, it’s imperative to consider the broader ethical, cultural, and social ramifications. Strengthening systems that support life quality at all stages should be a priority, ensuring that decisions about life’s end are made with the utmost care and integrity.

Cite this page

Arguments Against Euthanasia And Physician Assisted Suicide. (2024, Apr 14). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-against-euthanasia-and-physician-assisted-suicide/

"Arguments Against Euthanasia And Physician Assisted Suicide." PapersOwl.com , 14 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-against-euthanasia-and-physician-assisted-suicide/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Arguments Against Euthanasia And Physician Assisted Suicide . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-against-euthanasia-and-physician-assisted-suicide/ [Accessed: 21 May. 2024]

"Arguments Against Euthanasia And Physician Assisted Suicide." PapersOwl.com, Apr 14, 2024. Accessed May 21, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-against-euthanasia-and-physician-assisted-suicide/

"Arguments Against Euthanasia And Physician Assisted Suicide," PapersOwl.com , 14-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-against-euthanasia-and-physician-assisted-suicide/. [Accessed: 21-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Voluntary Euthanasia

The entry sets out five conditions often said to be necessary for anyone to be a candidate for legalized voluntary euthanasia (and, with appropriate qualifications, physician-assisted suicide), outlines the moral case advanced by those in favor of legalizing voluntary euthanasia, and discusses the five most important objections made by those who deny that voluntary euthanasia is morally permissible and who are, in consequence, opposed to its being legalized.

1. Introduction

2. five conditions often proposed as necessary for candidacy for voluntary euthanasia, 3. a moral case for voluntary euthanasia, 4. five objections to the moral permissibility of voluntary euthanasia, other internet resources, related entries.

When a person performs an act of euthanasia, she brings about the death of another person because she believes the latter’s present existence is so bad that he would be better off dead, or believes that unless she intervenes and ends his life, his life will very soon become so bad that he would be better off dead. Accordingly, the motive of the person who performs an act of euthanasia is to benefit the one whose death is brought about. (This also holds for many instances of physician-assisted suicide, but use of the latter term is usually restricted to forms of assistance which stop short of the physician ‘bringing about the death’ of the patient, for example, those involving means that have to be activated by the patient.)

It is important to emphasize the motive of benefiting the person who is assisted to die because well-being is a key value in relation to the morality of euthanasia (see Section 3 below). Nonetheless, the defensibility of the contention that someone can be better off dead has been the subject of extensive philosophical deliberation. Those who claim that a person can be better off dead believe this to be true when the life that remains in prospect for that person has no positive value for her (a possibility which is discussed by e.g., Foot, 1977; McMahan 2002; Bradley 2009), whereas some of those who hold that a person’s life is inviolable deny that a person can ever be better off dead (e.g., Keown in Jackson and Keown 2012). A Kant-inspired variant on this latter position has been advanced by Velleman (1999). He considers that a person’s well-being can only matter if she is of intrinsic value and so that it is impermissible to violate a person’s rational nature (the source of her intrinsic value) for the sake of her well-being. Accordingly, he holds that it is impermissible to assist someone to die who judges that she would be better off dead and competently requests assistance with dying. The only exception is when a person’s life is so degraded as to call into question her rational nature, albeit he thinks it unlikely that anyone in that position will remain competent to request assistance with dying. This position appears to be at odds with the well-established right of a competent patient to refuse life-prolonging medical treatment, at least when further treatment is refused because she considers that her life no longer has value for her and further treatment will not restore its value to her. (For further reasons to reject arguments for the inviolability of the life of a person, including Velleman’s, see e.g., McMahan 2002; Young 2007; Sumner 2011, 2017.)

Because our concern will be with voluntary euthanasia – that is, with those instances of euthanasia in which a clearly competent person makes a voluntary and enduring request to be helped to die (or, by extension, when an authorised proxy makes a substituted judgment by choosing in the manner the no-longer-competent person would have chosen had he remained competent) – a second key value is the competence of the person requesting assistance with dying. There will be occasion to mention non-voluntary euthanasia – instances of euthanasia where a person lacks the competence at the time when a decision is to be made to request euthanasia and has not previously competently declared a preference for it via an advance directive (see the entry on advance directives ) – only when consideration is given to the claim that permitting voluntary euthanasia will lead via a slippery slope to permitting non-voluntary euthanasia. Nothing will be said here about involuntary euthanasia , where a competent person’s life is brought to an end despite an explicit expression of opposition to euthanasia, beyond saying that, no matter how honorable the perpetrator’s motive, such a death is, and ought to be, unlawful.

Debate about the morality and legality of voluntary euthanasia has been, for the most part, a phenomenon of the second half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty first century. Certainly, the ancient Greeks and Romans did not believe that life needed to be preserved at any cost and were, in consequence, tolerant of suicide when no relief could be offered to a dying person or, in the case of the Stoics and Epicureans, when a person no longer cared for his life. In the sixteenth century, Thomas More, in describing a utopian community, envisaged such a community as one that would facilitate the death of those whose lives had become burdensome as a result of ‘torturing and lingering pain’. But it has only been in the last hundred years that there have been concerted efforts to make legal provision for voluntary euthanasia. Until quite recently there had been no success in obtaining such legal provision (though assisted suicide, including, but not limited to, physician-assisted suicide, has been legally tolerated in Switzerland for a number of decades). However, the outlook changed dramatically in the 1970s and 80s because of a series of court cases in the Netherlands which culminated in an agreement between the legal and medical authorities to ensure that no physician would be prosecuted for assisting a patient to die as long as certain guidelines were strictly adhered to (see Griffiths, et al., 1998). In brief, the guidelines were established to permit physicians to practise voluntary euthanasia in those instances in which a competent patient had made a voluntary and informed request to be helped to die, the patient’s suffering was unbearable, there was no way of making that suffering bearable that was acceptable to the patient, and the physician’s judgements as to diagnosis and prognosis were confirmed after consultation with another physician.

The first legislative approval for voluntary euthanasia was achieved with the passage in the parliament of Australia’s Northern Territory of a bill enabling physicians to practise voluntary euthanasia. Subsequent to the Act’s proclamation in 1996, it faced a series of legal challenges from opponents of voluntary euthanasia. In 1997 the challenges culminated in the Australian National Parliament overturning the legislation when it prohibited Australian territories from enacting legislation to permit voluntary euthanasia on constitutional grounds. Australia is a federation consisting of six states and two territories. Unlike the territories, the states do have the constitutional right to enact such legislation and in 2017 the state of Victoria did just that. The legislation came into effect in 2019. In 2019, a second state, Western Australia, enacted legislation to enable voluntary medically assisted death. The legislation became effective in 2021. In 2021 three further states, Tasmania, South Australia and Queensland enacted legislation to enable voluntary medically assisted death which came into force in 2022 for the first two, and 2023 for the third. Finally, in 2022 NSW enacted legislation which came into force in 2023 resulting in voluntary medically assisted death being available in each of the states. Attempts are currently being made in both the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory to introduce legislation in favor of voluntary medically assisted death that will avoid being vetoed by the federal parliament.

In November 2000, the Netherlands passed legislation to legalize the practice of voluntary euthanasia. The legislation passed through all the parliamentary stages early in 2001. The Belgian parliament passed similar legislation in 2002 and Luxembourg followed suit in 2009. (For a very helpful comparative study of relevant legislation see Lewis 2007. See also Griffiths, et al. 2008.)

In Oregon in the United States, legislation was introduced in 1997 to permit physician-assisted suicide after a referendum strongly endorsed the proposed legislation. Later in 1997 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide; however, the Court did not preclude individual states from legislating in favor of physician-assisted suicide (so the Oregon legislation was unaffected). Since that time the Oregon legislation has been successfully utilised by a significant number of people and similar legislation has been passed in the state of Washington in 2009, in Vermont in 2013, and more recently still in California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico and the District of Columbia. A series of judicial decisions in the state of Montana in 2008 and 2009 established that the state could not prohibit physician-assisted suicide but legislation has not yet been introduced to codify the legal situation. A number of the remaining states are currently considering physician-assisted suicide bills.

A similar legal position to that in Montana obtained in the nation of Colombia from the late 1990s as a result of a majority ruling by its Constitutional Court in favor of the legality of physician-assisted suicide but legislative provision was finally made only quite recently. In 2021, Spain legalized voluntary euthanasia. In Austria and Germany courts have authorised physician-assisted suicide but no legislative backing for the practice has been introduced, while in Italy legislation for voluntary medically assisted death has been passed in one house of the bicameral parliament. In Portugal legislation for physician-assisted suicide was passed but was subsequently rejected by the Constitutional Court.

In Canada, the province of Quebec introduced legislation permitting medical aid in dying in 2014. The legislation came into effect in 2016 at around the same time that the Canadian National Parliament passed legislation permitting both physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia throughout all of the Canadian federation. (For a brief account of events leading up to the enactment of the various pieces of legislation in Canada see Downie and Schuklenk 2021.)

New Zealand held a referendum in 2019 which resulted in approval for the introduction of legislation for voluntary medically assisted death. The legislation came into effect late in 2021.

In the following countries legislative proposals for voluntary medically assisted death are presently under review: the Czech Republic, France, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Japan, Jersey, South Korea, the Philippines, Slovenia and the United Kingdom.

With that brief sketch of the historical background in place, we will proceed first to consider the conditions that those who have advocated making voluntary medically assisted death legally permissible have typically insisted should be satisfied. Consideration of the proposed conditions will establish a framework for the moral interrogation that will follow in Sections 3 and 4. Section 3 will outline the positive moral case put forward by those who want voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide to be legally permissible. Section 4 will be devoted to scrutinising the most important of the objections that have been levelled against that case by those opposed to the legalization of voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.

Advocates of voluntary euthanasia typically contend that if a person

is suffering from a terminal illness;
is unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure for that illness during what remains of her life expectancy;
is, as a direct result of the illness, either suffering intolerable pain, or only has available a life that is unacceptably burdensome (e.g., because the illness has to be treated in ways that lead to her being unacceptably dependent on others or on technological means of life support);
has an enduring, voluntary and competent wish to die (or has, prior to losing the competence to do so, expressed a wish to be assisted to die in the event that conditions (a)-(c) are satisfied); and
is unable without assistance to end her life,

there should be legal and medical provision to facilitate her being allowed to die or assisted to die.

It should be acknowledged that these conditions are quite restrictive, indeed more restrictive than many think appropriate. In particular, the first condition restricts access to voluntary euthanasia to those who are terminally ill . While that expression is not free of all ambiguity, for present purposes it can be agreed that it does not include those who are rendered quadriplegic as a result of accidents, or sufferers from chronic diseases, or individuals who succumb to forms of dementia like Alzheimer’s Disease, to say nothing of those afflicted by ‘existential suffering’. Those who consider that cases like these show the first condition to be too restrictive (e.g., Varelius 2014, Braun, 2023) may, nonetheless, agree that including them as candidates for legalized voluntary euthanasia is likely to make it far harder in many jurisdictions to gain sufficient support for legalization (and so to make it harder to help those terminally ill persons who wish to die). Even so, they believe that voluntary euthanasia should be permitted for those who consider their lives no longer worth living, not just for for the terminally ill. Whether those who judge that their lives are no longer worth living, and so believe their lives are in that sense ‘complete’, should be afforded medical assistance with dying, has recently become a pressing concern in Belgium and the Netherlands. Several court cases have affirmed that such assistance may sometimes be provided for individuals in the former category even though the question remains as to whether it is properly a medical responsibility to render assistance with dying to someone who believes her life is complete despite her not suffering from a terminal medical condition (see, e.g., Young 2017). Relatedly, the issues of whether those suffering from a disability which will not reasonably foreseeably lead to death and those suffering because of a mental illness should be able to access medical assistance with dying have recently been the subject of intense debate in Canada. The debate culminated in disabled individuals, whose conditions are the cause of enduring, intolerable and irremediable suffering, being given access to medical assistance with dying as long as they are capable of making a competent request for that assistance. An intention to make a similar arrangement for those whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness was flagged for introduction in 2024, but has been temporarily shelved until further research has been conducted on the issue. It seems likely that the changes that have been made, or mooted, in these jurisdictions to the eligibility conditions for medical assistance with dying will lead to an expansion of the eligibility conditions for voluntary medically assisted death in other jurisdictions.

The fifth condition further restricts access to voluntary euthanasia by excluding those capable of ending their own lives, and so may be thought unduly restrictive by those who would wish to discourage terminally ill patients from attempting suicide. There will be yet others who consider this condition to be too restrictive because competent patients can always refuse nutrition and hydration (see, e.g., Bernat, et al. 1993; Savulescu 2014). Though this is true, many competent dying persons still wish to have access to legalized medically assisted death, rather than having to rely on refusing nutrition and hydration, so that they may retain control over the timing of their deaths and avoid needlessly prolonging the process of dying.

The second condition is intended simply to reflect the fact that it is normally possible to say when someone’s health status is incurable. So-called ‘miracle’ cures may be proclaimed by sensationalist journalists, but progress toward medical breakthroughs is typically painstaking. If there are miracles wrought by God that will be quite another matter entirely, but it is at least clear that not everyone’s death is thus to be staved off.

The third condition recognises what many who oppose the legalization of voluntary euthanasia do not, namely, that it is not only a desire to be released from pain that leads people to request help with dying. In the Netherlands, for example, pain has been found to be a less significant reason for requesting assistance with dying than other forms of suffering like frustration over loss of independence (see e.g., Marquet, et al. 2003; Onwuteaka-Philipsen, et al. 2012; Emanuel, et al. 2016). Sufferers from some terminal conditions may have their pain relieved but have to endure side effects that, for them, make life unbearable. Others may not have to cope with pain but, instead, with having to rely on forms of life support that simultaneously rob their lives of quality (as with, e.g., motor neurone disease). Yet others struggle with psychological distress and various psychiatric conditions and believe these conditions ought to be counted among the forms of suffering that qualify competent individuals to access medical assistance with dying. There has been greater recognition of, and support for, this position in those jurisdictions that make the role of unbearable suffering central to the determination of the eligibility of competent individuals for medical assistance with dying (see the discussion above of the first condition). Even so, inclusion of these forms of suffering highlights legitimate issues to do with the competence of at least some of those who suffer from them. (For a helpful recent study of the handling of requests for assistance with dying by psychiatric patients in the Netherlands see Kim, et al. 2016.)

A final preliminary point is that the fourth condition requires that the choice to die not only be uncoerced and competent but that it be enduring. The choice is one that will require time for reflection, and, almost certainly, discussion with others, so should not be settled in a moment. Nonetheless, as with other decisions affecting matters of importance, adults are presumed to choose voluntarily and to be competent unless the presence of defeating considerations can be established. (See the entry on decision-making capacity .) The burden of proof of establishing lack of voluntariness, or lack of competence, is on those who refuse to accept an adult person’s choice. There is no need to deny that this burden can sometimes be met (e.g., by pointing to the person’s being in a state of clinical depression). The claim is only that the onus falls on those who assert that an adult’s choice is not competent. (There are different issues to be faced when the competence of at least some older children and adolescents is at issue. In the Netherlands, for example, those aged twelve and older have sometimes been found to be competent to make end-of-life decisions for themselves. However, the topic will not be pursued further here because the focus of the entry is on competent adults.)

Clearly the five conditions set out above are likely to require some refinement if complete agreement is to be reached but there is sufficient agreement for us to proceed without further ado to consideration of the cases for and against legalization of voluntary euthanasia. (However, for a fuller discussion of issues concerning the definition of ‘euthanasia’ see, e.g., Beauchamp and Davidson 1979.)

One central ethical contention in support of voluntary euthanasia is that respect for persons demands respect for their autonomous choices as long as those choices do not result in harm to others. Respect for people’s autonomous choices is directly connected with the requirement for competence because autonomy presupposes competence (cf., Brock 1992). People have an interest in making important decisions about their lives in accordance with their own conception of how they want to live. In exercising autonomy, or self-determination, individuals take responsibility for their lives; since dying is a part of life, choices about the manner of their dying and the timing of their death are, for many people, part of what is involved in taking responsibility for their lives. Many are concerned about what the last phase of their lives will be like, not merely because of fears that their dying might involve them in great suffering, but also because of the desire to retain their dignity, and as much control over their lives as possible, during this phase. A second contention in support of voluntary euthanasia was mentioned at the beginning of this entry, namely the importance of promoting the well-being of persons. When someone is suffering intolerable pain or only has available a life that is unacceptably burdensome (see the third condition above), and he competently requests medical assistance with dying, his well-being may best be promoted by affording him that assistance. When harnessed together, the value to individuals of making autonomous choices, and the value to those individuals who make such choices of promoting their own well-being, provide the moral foundation for requests for voluntary euthanasia. Each consideration is necessary for moral justification of the practice, but taken in isolation neither suffices (see, e.g., Young 2007, 2017; Sumner 2011, 2017).

The technological interventions of modern medicine have had the effect of stretching out the time it takes for many people to die. Sometimes the added life this brings is an occasion for rejoicing; sometimes it drags out the period of significant physical and intellectual decline that a person undergoes with the result that life becomes no longer worth living. Many believe there is no single, objectively correct answer as to when, if at all, a person’s life becomes a burden and hence unwanted. If they are right, that simply points up the importance of individuals being able to decide autonomously for themselves whether their own lives retain sufficient quality and dignity to make life worth living. Others maintain that individuals can be in error about whether their lives continue to be worth living (cf., Foot 1977). The conditions outlined above in Section 2 are intended by those who propose them to serve, among other purposes, to safeguard against such error. But it is worth adding that in the event that a person who considers that she satisfies those conditions is judged by her medical attendants to be in error about whether it would be worth her continuing to live, the likely outcome is that those attendants will refuse to provide medical assistance with dying. (Evidence that will be mentioned below shows that this happens more frequently than might be predicted in jurisdictions in which medically assisted dying has been legalized. (There are discussions of the principles at stake in such matters in Young 2007; Wicclair 2011; Sumner 2020.) Unless a patient is able to be transferred to the care of other medical professionals who accept her assessment, she will have to rely on her own resources (e.g., by refusing nutrition and hydration). Even so, other things being equal, as long as a critically ill person is competent, her own judgement of whether continued life is a benefit to her ought to carry the greatest weight in any end-of-life decision making regardless of whether she is in a severely compromised and debilitated state. The idea that a competent individual’s autonomous judgment of the value to her of continued life should trump an assessment by others of her well-being should not be thought surprising because precisely the same happens when a competent patient refuses life-prolonging treatment.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it is agreed that we should respect a person’s competent request for medical assistance with dying (e.g., so as to enable her to achieve her autonomously chosen goal of an easeful death). It might be thought that in such an eventuality different moral concerns will be introduced from those that arise in connection with competent refusals. After all, while competent patients are entitled to refuse any form of medical treatment, they are not entitled to insist on the administration of forms of medical treatment that have no prospect of conferring a medical benefit or are not being provided because of a scarcity of medical resources or their affordability. While each of these points is sound, it remains the case that medical personnel have a duty to relieve suffering when that is within their capacity. Accordingly, doctors who regard medical assistance with dying as an element of appropriate medical care will consider it morally permissible to agree to a request for assistance with dying by a competent dying patient who wishes to avoid unbearable suffering. The reason for claiming only that this is morally permissible rather than morally obligatory will be explained in a subsequent paragraph. (For further reflections on the issue of responses to requests for medical assistance see, for instance, Dworkin 1998; Sumner 2011, 2017, 2020; Young 2007, 2017.)

Notwithstanding this response, as was seen earlier, at least some proponents of voluntary medically assisted dying wish to question why medical assistance with dying should be restricted to those covered by, in particular, the first three conditions set out above in Section 2. If people’s competent requests for medically assisted death should be respected why impose any restrictions at all on who may have access to medically assisted death? Why, for example, should those suffering from depression, or forms of dementia, not be eligible for medically assisted dying? Most proponents of voluntary medically assisted dying hold that there are at least two reasons for restricting access to it to those who satisfy the conditions set out earlier (or, a modified set that takes account of the concerns canvassed in the discussion of those proposed conditions). First, they contend that there are political grounds for doing so, namely, that because legalizing medically assisted dying for competent individuals is politically contested, the best hope for its legalization lies in focusing on those forms of suffering most likely to effect law reform. That is why some proponents deny the eligibility even of sufferers from conditions like ‘locked-in’ syndrome, motor neurone disease, and multiple sclerosis for voluntary medically assisted dying since, strictly, they are not terminally ill, and reliance has to be placed in consequence on their claim to be suffering unbearably. Second, and relatedly, most proponents of the legalization of medical assistance with dying have been cautious about supporting medically assisted death for those suffering from, for example, depression and dementia, because not only are they not terminally ill, but their competence to request assistance with dying is apt to be called into question, particularly in instances where they have given no prior indication of their preference for such assistance. Restricting access to medical assistance with dying to those whose suffering is less likely to be disputed avoids becoming embroiled in controversy. As was noted earlier, some critics of the restrictive approach (e.g., Varelius 2014) take a harder line and claim that it should not even be necessary for a person to be suffering from a medical condition to be eligible for medical assistance with dying; it should be enough to be ‘tired of life’. Only in a few jurisdictions, viz., Switzerland, the Netherlands and Belgium, has this issue been seriously broached. Regardless of what may happen in those jurisdictions, those seeking the legal provision of medical assistance with dying in other jurisdictions seem likely to maintain that if such assistance is to be seen as a legitimate form of medical care it has to be provided in response to a medical condition (rather than because someone is ‘tired of life’), and, indeed, restricted to those who satisfy the conditions outlined earlier in Section 2 (or some similar set of conditions). In short, these latter hold that making an autonomous request for assistance with dying is necessary, but should not be sufficient, for triggering such assistance.

There is one final matter of relevance to the moral case for voluntary medically assisted death on which comment must be made. The comment concerns a point foreshadowed in a previous paragraph, but it is also linked with the remark just made about the insufficiency of an autonomous request for assistance with dying to trigger that assistance. It is important to make the point that respect has to be shown not only for the dying person’s autonomy but also for the professional autonomy of any medical personnel asked to lend assistance with dying. The value (or, as some would prefer, the right) of self-determination does not entitle a patient to try to compel medical professionals to act contrary to their own moral or professional values. Hence, if voluntary euthanasia is to be legally permitted, it must be against a backdrop of respect for professional autonomy. Similarly, if a doctor’s view of her moral or professional responsibilities is at odds with her patient’s competent request for euthanasia, she should make provision, where it is feasible to do so, for the transfer of the patient to the care of a doctor who faces no such conflict. Given that, to date, those who contend that no scope should be permitted for conscientious objection within medical practice have garnered very little support for that view, making use of referrals and transfers remains the most effective means of resolving such disagreements.

Opponents of voluntary euthanasia have endeavored in a variety of ways to counter the very straightforward moral case that has been laid out above for its legalization (see, for example, Keown 2002; Foley, et al. 2002; Biggar 2004; Gorsuch 2006). Some of the counter-arguments are concerned only with whether the moral case warrants making the practice of voluntary euthanasia legal, whereas others are concerned with trying to undermine the moral case itself. In what follows, consideration will be given to the five most important counter-arguments. (For more comprehensive discussions of the morality and legality of medically assisted death see Biggar 2004; Gorsuch 2006; Young 2007; Sumner 2011, 2017; Keown 2018).

4.1 Objection 1

It is sometimes said (e.g., Emanuel 1999; Keown in Jackson and Keown 2012) that it is not necessary nowadays for people to die while suffering from intolerable or overwhelming pain because the provision of effective palliative care has improved steadily, and hospice care is more widely available. Some have urged, in consequence, that voluntary euthanasia is unnecessary.

There are several flaws in this contention. First, while both good palliative care and hospice care make important contributions to the care of the dying, neither is a panacea. To get the best palliative care for an individual involves trial and error, with some consequent suffering in the process; moreover, even the best care fails to relieve all pain and suffering. Perhaps even more importantly, high quality palliative care commonly exacts a price in the form of side-effects such as nausea, incontinence, loss of awareness because of semi-permanent drowsiness, and so on. A rosy picture is often painted as to how palliative care can transform the plight of the dying. Such a picture is misleading according to those who have closely observed the effect of extended courses of treatment with drugs like morphine. For these reasons many skilled palliative care specialists acknowledge that palliative care does not enable an easeful death for every patient. Second, even though the sort of care provided through hospices is to be applauded, it is care that is available to only a small proportion of the terminally ill and then usually only in the very last stages of the illness (typically a matter of a few weeks). Notwithstanding that only relatively few of the dying have access to hospice care it is worth drawing attention to the fact that in, Oregon, to cite one example, a high proportion of those who have sought physician-assisted suicide were in hospice care. Third, and of greatest significance for present purposes, not everyone wishes to avail themselves of palliative or hospice care. For those who prefer to die on their own terms and in their own time, neither option may be attractive. As previously mentioned, a major source of distress for many dying patients is the frustration that comes with being unable to satisfy their autonomous wishes. Fourth, as also indicated earlier, the suffering that occasions a desire to end life is not always traceable to pain caused by illness. For some, what is intolerable is their forced dependence on others or on life-supporting machinery; for these patients, the availability of effective pain control is not the primary concern. (In relation to the preceding matters see Rietjens, et al. 2009 and Onwuteaka-Philipsen et al. 2012 for findings for the Netherlands; and, for Oregon, Ganzini, et al. 2009.)

4.2 Objection 2

A second, related objection to the moral and legal permissibility of voluntary euthanasia turns on the claim that we can never have sufficient evidence to be justified in believing that a dying person’s request to be helped to die is competent, enduring and genuinely voluntary.

It is certainly true that a request to die may not reflect an enduring desire to die (just as some attempts to commit suicide may reflect only temporary despair). That is why advocates of the legalization of voluntary euthanasia have argued that a cooling off period should normally be required before euthanasia is permitted to ensure that the request is enduring. That having been said, to claim that we can never be justified in believing that someone’s request to die reflects a settled preference for death is to go too far. If a competent person discusses the issue with others on different occasions over time, and remains steady in her resolve, or privately reflects on the issue for an extended period and does not waver in her conviction, her wish to die surely must be counted as enduring.

But, it might be asked, what if a person is racked with pain, or mentally confused because of the measures taken to relieve her pain, and is, in consequence, unable to think clearly and rationally about the alternatives? It has to be agreed that a person in those circumstances who wants to die should not be assumed to have a truly voluntary and enduring desire to die. However, there are at least two important points to make about those in such circumstances. First, they do not account for all of the terminally ill, so even if it is acknowledged that such people are incapable of agreeing to voluntary euthanasia that does not show that no one can ever voluntarily request help to die. Second, it is possible in at least some jurisdictions for a person to indicate, in advance of losing the capacity to give competent consent, how she would wish to be treated should she become terminally ill and suffer either intolerable pain or an unacceptable loss of control over her life (cf., for instance, Dworkin 1993). ‘Living wills’ or ‘advance directives’ are legal instruments for giving voice to people’s wishes while they are capable of giving competent, enduring and voluntary consent, including to their wanting help to die. As long as they are easily revocable in the event of a change of mind (just as civil wills are), they should be respected as evidence of a well thought-out conviction. (For more detailed consideration of these instruments see the entry on advance directives .)

Perhaps, though, what is really at issue in this objection is whether anyone can ever form a competent, enduring and voluntary judgement about being better off dead, rather than continuing to suffer from an illness, prior to suffering such an illness (cf., Keown in Jackson and Keown 2012). If this is what underlies the objection it is surely too paternalistic to be acceptable. Why is it not possible for a person to have sufficient inductive evidence (e.g., based on the experience of the deaths of friends or family) to know her own mind, and act accordingly, without having had direct experience of such suffering?

4.3 Objection 3

According to the traditional interpretation of the ‘doctrine of double effect’ it is permissible to act in a way which it is foreseen will have a bad effect, provided only that

the bad effect occurs as a side-effect (i.e., indirectly) to the achievement of the act that is directly aimed at;
the act directly aimed at is itself morally good or, at least, morally neutral;
the good effect is not achieved by way of the bad, that is, the bad must not be a means to the good; and
the bad effect must not be so serious as to outweigh the good effect.

Hence, it is permissible, according to the doctrine of double effect, to, for example, alleviate pain (a good effect) by administering a drug, knowing that doing so will shorten life, but impermissible to administer the same drug with the direct intention of terminating a patient’s life (a bad effect). This latter claim is said to apply regardless of whether the drug is given at the person’s request.

This is not the appropriate forum for a full consideration of the doctrine, for which see the entry on the doctrine of double effect . However, there is one very important criticism to be made of the application of the doctrine that has direct relevance to the issue of voluntary euthanasia.

On the most plausible reading, the doctrine of double effect can be relevant to the permissibility of voluntary euthanasia only when a person’s death is bad for her or, to put it another way, a harm to her. Sometimes the notion of ‘harm’ is understood simply as damage to a person’s interests whether consented to or not. At other times, it is understood, more strictly, as damage that has been wrongfully inflicted. On either understanding of harm, there can be instances in which death for a person does not constitute a harm for her because it will either render her better off, or, as some would insist, no worse off, when compared with remaining alive. Accordingly, in those instances, the doctrine of double effect can have no relevance to the debate about the permissibility of voluntary euthanasia. (For extended discussions of the doctrine of double effect and its bearing on the moral permissibility of voluntary euthanasia see, e.g., McIntyre 2001; Woodward 2001; Cavanaugh 2006; Young 2007; Sumner 2011, 2017.)

4.4 Objection 4

As was noted earlier in Section 3, there is a widespread belief that so-called passive (voluntary) euthanasia, wherein life-sustaining or life-prolonging measures are withdrawn or withheld in response to a competent patient’s request, is morally permissible. The reason why passive (voluntary) euthanasia is said to be morally permissible is that the patient is simply allowed to die because steps are not taken to preserve or prolong life. This happens, for example, when a dying patient requests the withdrawal or the withholding of measures whose administration would be medically futile, or unacceptably burdensome. By contrast, active (voluntary) euthanasia is said to be morally impermissible because it is claimed to require an unjustifiable intentional act of killing to satisfy the patient’s request (cf., for example, Finnis, 1995; Keown in Jackson and Keown 2012; Keown 2018).

Despite its popularity and widespread use, the distinction between passive and active euthanasia is neither particularly clear nor morally helpful. (For a fuller discussion, see McMahan 2002.) Whether behavior is described in terms of acts or omissions (a distinction which underpins the alleged difference between active and passive voluntary euthanasia and that between killing a person and letting her die), is often a matter of pragmatics rather than anything of deeper moral importance. Consider, for instance, the practice (once common in hospitals) of deliberately proceeding slowly to a ward in response to a request to provide assistance for a patient who has been assigned a ‘not for resuscitation’ code. Or, consider ‘pulling the plug’ on a respirator keeping an otherwise dying patient alive, as against not replacing the oxygen supply when it runs out. Are these acts or omissions? If the answers turn on merely pragmatic considerations the supposed distinction between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia will be hard to sustain.

Even supposing that the distinction between acts and omissions, and the associated distinction between killing and letting die, can be satisfactorily clarified (on which see the entry doing v. allowing harm ), there remains the issue of whether these distinctions have moral significance in every circumstance. Consider a case of a patient suffering from motor neurone disease who is completely respirator dependent, finds her condition intolerable, and competently and persistently requests to be removed from the respirator so that she may die. Even the Catholic Church in recent times has been prepared to agree that it is permissible, in a case like this, to turn off the respirator. No doubt this has been because the Catholic Church considers such a patient is only being allowed to die. Even were it to be agreed, for the sake of argument, that such a death should be regarded as an instance of letting die, this concession would not show that it would have been morally worse had the patient been killed at her request (active voluntary euthanasia) rather than being allowed to die (passive voluntary euthanasia). Indeed, supporters of voluntary medically assisted death maintain that since death is beneficial in such an instance (or, at the very least, leaves the dying person no worse off), actively bringing about the death is morally to be preferred to just allowing it to happen because the desired benefit is achieved sooner and thus with less suffering.

Opponents of voluntary euthanasia claim, however, that the difference between active and passive euthanasia is to be found in the agent’s intention: if someone’s life is intentionally terminated she has been killed, whereas if she is just no longer being aggressively treated, her death should be attributed to the underlying disease. Many physicians would say that their intention in withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment in such circumstances is simply to respect the patient’s wishes. This is plausible in those instances where the patient competently requests that aggressive treatment no longer be given (or, the patient’s proxy makes such a request). But it will often be implausible. In many cases the most plausible interpretation of a physician’s intention in withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining measures is that it is to end the patient’s life. Consider the palliative care practice of ‘terminally sedating’ a patient after a decision has been made to cease aggressive treatment. Suppose (as sometimes happens) that this is then followed by withholding artificially supplied nutrition. In these latter instances the best explanation of the physician’s behavior is that the physician intends thereby to end the life of the patient. What could be the point of the action, the goal aimed at, the intended outcome, if not to end the patient’s life? (Cf. Winkler 1995.) No sense can be made of the action as being intended to palliate the patient’s diseased condition, or to keep the patient comfortable. Nor is it appropriate to claim that what kills the patient is the underlying disease. What kills the patient is the act of depriving her of nutrition (i.e., of starving her to death). The point can be generalized to cover many more instances involving either the withdrawal or the withholding of life-sustaining medical treatment. In short, there is no good reason to think that whereas so-called passive voluntary euthanasia is morally acceptable active voluntary euthanasia never can be.

But we can go further. Giving titrated doses of morphine that reach levels beyond those needed to control pain, or removing a respirator from a sufferer from motor neurone disease, seem to many of us to amount to intentionally bringing about the death of the person being cared for. To be sure, as was acknowledged above, there are circumstances in which doctors can truthfully say that the actions they perform, or omissions they make, will bring about the deaths of their patients even though it was not their intention that those patients would die. So, for instance, if a patient refuses life-prolonging medical treatment because she considers it futile, it can be reasonable to say that her doctor’s intention in complying with the request was simply to respect her wishes. Nevertheless, as we have seen, there are other circumstances in which it is highly stilted to claim, as some doctors continue to do, that they had no intention of bringing about death.

These considerations should settle matters but do not do so for those who maintain that killing, in medical contexts, is always morally unjustified – a premise that underwrites much of the debate surrounding this fourth objection. But this underlying assumption is open to challenge and has been challenged by, for instance, Rachels 1986 and McMahan 2002. One of the reasons the challengers have given is that there are cases in which killing a competent dying person when she requests assistance with dying, is morally preferable to allowing her to die, namely, when taking the latter option would serve only to prolong her suffering against her wishes. Further, despite the longstanding legal doctrine that no one can justifiably consent to be killed (on which more later), it surely is relevant to the justification of an act of killing that the person killed has autonomously decided that she would be better off dead and so asks to be helped to die.

4.5 Objection 5

It is sometimes said that if society allows voluntary euthanasia to be legalized, we will then have set foot on a slippery slope that will lead us eventually to support other forms of euthanasia, including, in particular, non-voluntary euthanasia. Whereas it was once the common refrain that that was precisely what happened in Hitler’s Germany, in recent decades the tendency has been to claim that experience with legalized euthanasia in the Netherlands and Belgium, in particular, has confirmed the reality of the slippery slope.

Slippery slope arguments come in various versions. One (but not the only) way of classifying them has been to refer to logical, psychological and arbitrary line versions. The common feature of the different forms is the contention that once the first step is taken on a slippery slope the subsequent steps follow inexorably, whether for logical reasons, psychological reasons, or to avoid arbitrariness in ‘drawing a line’ between a person’s actions. (For further discussion see, e.g., Rachels 1986; Brock 1992; Walton 1992.)

We need first to consider whether, at the theoretical level, any of these forms of argument is powerful enough to refute the case for the legalization of voluntary euthanasia. We will then be in a position to comment on the alleged empirical support from the experiences of Hitler’s Germany and, more recently, of legalized euthanasia in the Netherlands and elsewhere, for the existence of a slippery slope that supposedly comes into being with the legalization of voluntary euthanasia.

To begin with, there is nothing logically inconsistent in supporting voluntary euthanasia while maintaining the moral inappropriateness of non-voluntary euthanasia. (However, for an attempt to press the charge that there is such an inconsistency see, e.g., Keown 2022.) Undoubtedly, some advocates of voluntary euthanasia wish also to lend their support to some acts of non-voluntary euthanasia, for example, for those in persistent vegetative states who have never indicated their wishes about being helped to die, or for certain severely disabled infants for whom the outlook is hopeless. (See, e.g., Kuhse and Singer 1985; Singer 1994; Stingl 2010; Sumner 2017.) Others believe that the consent of the patient is strictly required if euthanasia is appropriately to be legalized. The difference is not a matter of logical acumen; it is to be explained by reference to the importance placed on key values by the respective supporters. Thus, for example, those who insist on the necessity for a competent request by a patient for medical assistance with dying typically believe that such a request is the paramount consideration in end-of-life decision making (even when it is harnessed to the value of individual well-being), whereas those who consider a person’s best interests to be the paramount consideration are more likely to believe in the justifiability of instances of non-voluntary euthanasia like those mentioned above.

Next, it is hard to see why moving from voluntary to non-voluntary euthanasia is supposed to be psychologically inevitable. Why should those who support the legalization of voluntary euthanasia, because they value the autonomy of the individual, find it psychologically easier, in consequence, to endorse the killing of those who are not able competently to request assistance with dying? What reason is there to believe that they will, as a result of their support for voluntary euthanasia, be psychologically driven to endorse a practice of non-voluntary euthanasia?

Finally, since there is nothing arbitrary about distinguishing voluntary euthanasia from non-voluntary euthanasia (because the line between them is based on clear principles), there can be no substance to the charge that only by arbitrarily drawing a line between them could non-voluntary euthanasia be avoided were voluntary euthanasia to be legalized.

What, though, of Hitler’s Germany and the recent experience of legalized voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands and elsewhere? The former is easily dismissed as an indication of an inevitable descent from voluntary euthanasia to non-voluntary. There never was a policy in favor of, or a legal practice of, voluntary euthanasia in Germany in the 1920s to the 1940s (see, for example, Burleigh 1994). There was, prior to Hitler coming to power, a clear practice of killing some disabled persons. But it was never suggested that their being killed was justified by reference to their best interests; rather, it was said that society would be benefited. Hitler’s later revival of the practice and its widening to take in other groups such as Jews and gypsies was part of a program of eugenics , not euthanasia.

Since the publication of the Remmelink Report in 1991 into the medical practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands, it has frequently been said that the Dutch experience shows that legally protecting voluntary euthanasia is impossible without also affording shelter to the non-voluntary euthanasia that will follow in its train (see, e.g., Keown 2018). In the period since that report there have been regular national studies of the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands (see, e.g., Rietjens, et al. 2009; Onwuteaka-Philipsen, et al. 2012; van der Heide, et al. 2017). The findings from these national studies have consistently shown that there is no evidence for the existence of such a slippery slope. Among the specific findings the following are worth mentioning: of those terminally ill persons who have been assisted to die about sixty per cent have clearly been cases of voluntary euthanasia as it has been characterised in this entry; of the remainder, the vast majority of cases were of patients who at the time of their medically assisted deaths were no longer competent. It might be thought that these deaths ought to be regarded as instances of non-voluntary euthanasia. But, in fact, it would be inappropriate to regard them as such. Here is why. For the overwhelming majority of these cases, the decisions to end life were taken only after consultation between the attending doctor(s) and close family members, and so can legitimately be thought of as involving substituted judgements. Moreover, according to the researchers, the overwhelming majority of these cases fit within either of two common practices that occur in countries where voluntary euthanasia has not been legalized, namely, that of terminal sedation of dying patients, and that of giving large doses of opioids to relieve pain while foreseeing that this will also end life. In a very few cases, there was no consultation with relatives, though in those cases there were consultations with other medical personnel. The researchers contend that these instances are best explained by the fact that families in the Netherlands strictly have no final legal authority to act as surrogate decision-makers for incompetent persons. For these reasons the researchers maintain that non-voluntary euthanasia is not widely practised in the Netherlands.

That there have only been a handful of prosecutions of Dutch doctors for failing to follow agreed procedures (Griffiths, et al. 1998; Asscher and van de Vathorst 2020), that none of the doctors prosecuted has had a significant penalty imposed, that a significant proportion of requests for medical assistance with dying are rejected as unjustifiable, and that the Dutch public have regularly reaffirmed their support for the agreed procedures suggests that, contrary to the claims of some critics, the legalization of voluntary euthanasia has not increased the incidence of non-voluntary euthanasia. A similar picture to the one in the Netherlands has emerged from studies of the operation of the law concerning physician-assisted suicide in Oregon. Indeed, in a recent wide-ranging study of attitudes and practices of voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide covering two continents, a prominent critic of these practices has concluded (in agreement with his co-authors) that little evidence exists of abuse, particularly of the vulnerable (see Emanuel, et al., 2016). Unfortunately, insufficient time has elapsed for appropriate studies to be conducted in the other jurisdictions that have legalized either voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (but for some relevant evidence see e.g., White, et al. 2022). Finally, some commentators have pointed out that there may, in reality, be more danger of the line between voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia being blurred if euthanasia is practised in the absence of legal recognition, since there will, in those circumstances, be neither transparency nor monitoring (which cannot be said of the Netherlands, Belgium, Oregon and so on).

None of this is to suggest that it is not necessary to ensure the presence of safeguards against potential abuse of legally protected voluntary euthanasia. This is particularly important for the protection of those who have become incompetent by the time decisions need to be taken about whether to assist them to die. Furthermore, it is, of course, possible that the reform of any law may have unintended effects. However, if the arguments outlined above are sound (and the experience in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, along with the more limited experience in several states in the United States and in Canada, is, for the present, not only the best evidence we have that they are sound, but the only relevant evidence), that does not seem very likely.

It is now well-established in many jurisdictions that competent patients are entitled to make their own decisions about life-sustaining medical treatment. That is why they can refuse such treatment even when doing so is tantamount to deciding to end their life. It is plausible to think that the fundamental basis of the right to decide about life-sustaining treatment – respect for a person’s autonomy and her assessment of what will best serve her well-being – has direct relevance to the legalization of voluntary euthanasia (see, e.g., Dworkin 1998; Young 2007, 2017; Sumner 2011, 2017). In consequence, extending the right of self-determination to cover cases of voluntary euthanasia does not require a dramatic shift in legal policy. Nor do any novel legal values or principles need to be invoked. Indeed, the fact that suicide and attempted suicide are no longer criminal offences in many jurisdictions indicates that the central importance of individual self-determination in a closely analogous context has been accepted. The fact that voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have not been more widely decriminalized is perhaps best explained along a similar line to the one that has frequently been offered for excluding the consent of the victim as a justification for an act of killing, namely the difficulties thought to exist in establishing the genuineness of the consent. But, the establishment of suitable procedures for giving consent to voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is surely no harder than establishing procedures for competently refusing burdensome or otherwise unwanted medical treatment. The latter has already been accomplished in many jurisdictions, so the former should be achievable as well.

Suppose that the moral case for legalizing voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide does come to be judged more widely as stronger than the case against legalization, and they are made legally permissible in more jurisdictions than at present. Should doctors take part in the practice? Should only doctors perform voluntary euthanasia? These questions ought to be answered in light of the best understanding of what it is to provide medical care. The proper administration of medical care should promote the welfare of patients while respecting their individual self-determination. It is these twin values that should guide medical care, not the preservation of life at all costs, or the preservation of life without regard to whether patients want their lives prolonged should they judge that life is no longer of benefit or value to them. Many doctors in those jurisdictions where medically assisted death has been legalized and, to judge from available survey evidence, in other liberal democracies as well, see the practice of voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide as not only compatible with their professional commitments but also with their conception of the best medical care for the dying. That being so, doctors of the same conviction in jurisdictions in which voluntary medically assisted death is currently illegal should no longer be prohibited by law from lending their professional assistance to competent terminally ill persons who request assistance with dying because of irremediable suffering or because their lives no longer have value for them.

Asscher, E. and S. van de Vathorst, 2020, “First Prosecution of a Dutch Doctor Since the Euthanasia Act of 2002: What Does It Mean?”, Journal of Medical Ethics , 46: 71–75.
Beauchamp, T. and A. Davidson, 1979, “The Definition of Euthanasia”, The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy , 4: 294–312.
Bernat, J., B. Gert, and R. Mognielnicki, 1993, “Patient Refusal of Hydration and Nutrition: An Alternative to Physician Assisted Suicide or Voluntary Euthanasia”, Archives of Internal Medicine , 153: 2723–2728.
Biggar, N., 2004, Aiming to Kill: The Ethics of Suicide and Euthanasia , London: Darton, Longman and Todd.
Bradley, B., 2009, Well-Being and Death , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Braun, E., 2023, “An autonomy-based approach to assisted suicide: a way to avoid the expressivist objection against assisted dying laws”, Journal of Medical Ethics , 49: 497–501.
Brock, D., 1993, “Voluntary Active Euthanasia”, Hastings Center Report , 22(2): 10–22.
Burleigh, M., 1994, Death and Deliverance: Euthanasia in Germany c. 1900–1945 , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cavanaugh, T., 2006, Double-Effect Reasoning: Doing Good and Avoiding Evil , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Commission on the Study of Medical Practice Concerning Euthanasia: Medical Decisions Concerning the End of Life , The Hague: SdU, 1991. (This is known as ‘The Remmelink Report’.)
Downie, J. and U. Schuklenk, 2021, “Social determinants of health and slippery slopes in assisted dying debates: lessons from Canada”, Journal of Medical Ethics , 47: 662–669.
Dworkin, R., 1993, Life’s Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom , New York: Random House.
Dworkin, G., 1998, “Public Policy and Physician-Assisted Suicide”, in Dworkin, Frey, & Bok 1998, pp. 64–80.
Dworkin, G., R. Frey, and S. Bok, 1998, Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: For and Against , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Emanuel, E., 1999, “What Is the Great Benefit of Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide?”, Ethics , 109: 629–642.
Emanuel, E., B. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, J. Urwin and J. Cohen, 2016, “Attitudes and Practices of Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide in the United States, Canada and Europe”, Journal of the American Medical Association , 316: 79–90.
Finnis, J., 1995, “A Philosophical Case Against Euthanasia” in J. Keown (ed.), Euthanasia Examined: Ethical, Clinical and Legal Perspectives , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foley, K. and H. Hendin (eds.), 2002, The Case Against Assisted Suicide: For the Right to End-of-Life Care , Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Foot, P., 1977, “Euthanasia”, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 6: 85–112.
Ganzini, L., E. Goy and S. Dobscha, 2009, “Oregonians’ Reasons for Requesting Physician Aid in Dying”, Archives of Internal Medicine , 169: 489–492.
Gorsuch, N., 2006, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia , Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Griffiths, J., A. Bood, and H. Weyers, 1998, Euthanasia and Law in the Netherlands , Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Griffiths, J., H. Weyers and M. Adams, 2008, Euthanasia and Law in Europe , Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Jackson, E. and J. Keown, 2012, Debating Euthanasia , Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Keown, J., 2018, Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy: an argument against legalization , 2nd edition, New York: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 2022, “The Logical Link Between Voluntary and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia”, Cambridge Law Journal , 81: 84–108.
Kim, S., R. De Vries and J. Peteet, 2016, “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide of Patients with Psychiatric Disorders in the Netherlands 2011 to 2014”, Journal of the American Medical Association Psychiatry , 73: 362–368.
Kuhse, H. and P. Singer, 1985, Should the Baby Live?: The Problem of Handicapped Infants , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, P., 2007, Assisted Dying and Legal Change , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marquet, R., A. Bartelds, G. Visser, P. Spreeuwenberg and L. Peters, 2003, “Twenty Five Years of Requests for Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide in Dutch General Practice: Trend Analysis”, British Medical Journal , 327: 201–202.
McIntyre, A., 2001, “Doing Away With Double Effect”, Ethics , 111: 219–255.
McMahan, J., 2002, The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B., A. Brinkman-Stoppelenburg, C. Penning, G. Jong-Krul, J. van Delden and A. van der Heide, 2012, “Trends in end-of-life practices before and after the enactment of the euthanasia law in the Netherlands from 1990–2010: A repeated cross-sectional survey”, The Lancet , 380: 908–915.
Rachels, J., 1986, The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rietjens, J., P. van der Maas, B. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, J. van Delden and A. van der Heide, 2009, “Two Decades of Research on Euthanasia from the Netherlands: What Have We Learnt and What Questions Remain?”, Journal of Bioethical Inquiry , 6: 271–283.
Savulescu, J., 2014, “A Simple Solution to the Puzzles of End of Life? Voluntary Palliated Starvation”, Journal of Medical Ethics , 40: 110–113.
Singer, P. 1994, Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics , Melbourne: Text Publishing.
Stingl, M., (ed.), 2010, The Price of Compassion: Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia , Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press.
Sumner, L., 2011, Assisted Death: A Study in Ethics and Law , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2017, Physician-Assisted Death: What Everyone Needs to Know , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2020, “Conscientious Refusal to Provide Medically Assisted Dying”, University of Toronto Law Journal , 71: 1–31.
van der Heide, A., J.van Delden and B. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, 2017, “End-of-Life Decisions in the Netherlands over 25 Years”, New England Journal of Medicine , 377: 492–494.
Varelius, J., 2014, “Medical Expertise, Existential Suffering and Ending Life”, Journal of Medical Ethics , 40: 104–107.
Velleman, J., 1999, “A Right of Self-Termination?”, Ethics , 109: 606–628.
White, B., L. Willmott, K. Del Villar, J. Hewitt, E. Close, L. Greaves, J. Cameron, R. Meehan and J. Downie, 2022, “Who is Eligible for Voluntary Assisted Death?: Nine Medical Conditions Assessed Against Five Legal Frameworks”, University of New South Wales Law Journal , 45: 401–444.
Wicclair, M., 2011, Conscientious Objection in Health Care: An Ethical Analysis , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Winkler, E., 1995, “Reflections on the State of Current Debate Over Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia”, Bioethics , 9: 313–326.
Woodward, P., (ed.), 2001, The Doctrine of Double Effect: Philosophers Debate a Controversial Moral Principle , Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Young, R., 2007, Medically Assisted Death , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 2017, “An Argument in Favor of the Morality of Voluntary Medically Assisted Death”, in M. Cholbi (ed.), Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Global Views on Choosing to End Life , Santa Barbara: Praeger.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Medically Assisted Dying , an annotated bibliography authored by Robert Young (La Trobe University)
Eight Reasons Not to Legalize Physician Assisted Suicide , by David Albert Jones, online resource at the Anscombe Bioethics Centre website.

advance directives | decision-making capacity | doing vs. allowing harm | double effect, doctrine of

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

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 […]
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 […]
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.
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 […]
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.
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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.
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 […]
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 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 […]
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: 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 […]
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 […]
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 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 […]
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.
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 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/.

Human Rights Essay Ideas
Suffering Essay Topics
Morality Research Ideas
Death Penalty Questions
Healthcare Questions
Suicide Topics
Constitution Research Ideas
Social Justice Essay Ideas

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
J Med Ethics Hist Med

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a systematic review of medical students’ attitudes in the last 10 years

Alejandro gutierrez-castillo.

1 Researcher, School of Medicine, Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education, Nuevo León México, Mexico.

Javier Gutierrez-Castillo

Francisco guadarrama-conzuelo, amado jimenez-ruiz.

2 Neurology Resident, Department of Neurology, National Institute of Medical Science and Nutrition Salvador Zubirán, Ciudad de México, México.

Jose Luis Ruiz-Sandoval

3 Professor, Department of Neurology, Civil Hospital of Guadalajara “Fray Antonio Alcalde”, Jalisco, México.

This study aimed at examining the approval rate of the medical students’ regarding active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, and physician-assisted-suicide over the last ten years. To do so, the arguments and variables affecting students’ choices were examined and a systematic review was conducted, using PubMed and Web of Science databases, including articles from January 2009 to December 2018.

From 135 identified articles, 13 met the inclusion criteria. The highest acceptance rates for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide were from European countries. The most common arguments supporting euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide were the followings: ( i ) patient’s autonomy (n = 6), ( ii ) relief of suffering (n = 4), and ( ii ) the thought that terminally-ill patients are additional burden (n = 2). The most common arguments against euthanasia were as follows: ( i ) religious and personal beliefs (n = 4), ( ii ) the “slippery slope” argument and the risk of abuse (n = 4), and ( iii ) the physician’s role in preserving life (n = 2). Religion (n = 7), religiosity (n = 5), and the attributes of the medical school of origin (n = 3) were the most significant variables to influence the students’ attitude. However, age, previous academic experience, family income, and place of residence had no significant impact.

Medical students' opinions on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be appropriately addressed and evaluated because their moral compass, under the influence of such opinions, will guide them in solving future ethical and therapeutic dilemmas in the medical field.

Introduction

Death by itself is not part of an ethical dilemma, as all lives are bound to end since the moment of conception, and human beings confront death through their personal beliefs, religion, and cultural context. Regardless of the natural and unavoidable causes of death, debate over death focuses on how to control it as well as on who and how should perform the death-related practices in medical field. The important role of physicians in this debate is that they are often both the judge and the executor of such practices ( 1 ). Several physicians believe that the idea of promoting death is against Hippocratic Oath and their primary role as healer, while others may reject the idea based on their moral or religious values ( 1 ).

The issues on control over death can be divided into two broad categories: euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Euthanasia is further divided into active euthanasia (AE) or passive euthanasia (PE), according to the role that the physician plays in the process. The term PE is no longer used in some countries, and the term Therapy Withdrawal (TW) is replaced as the physician’s role is limited to suspending treatment or stopping additional measures that artificially prolong life. In TW, the physician acts as a mere observer while the disease advances and ends the patient’s life. However, in AE, the physician operatively engages in ending patient's life by administering a toxic substance that accelerates death ( 2 ). In PAS, the physician intentionally helps the patient to commit suicide by providing drugs for their self-administration at the patient’s competent and voluntary request ( 3 ). The differences among aforementioned approaches have implications that surpass their moral approval, as the medical actions involved in these approaches are regulated by law. According to the American Medical Association (AMA), AE and PAS are in conflict with physicians’ healing role. Furthermore, their management are quite challenging, if not completely impossible, and they entail grave risks to the society ( 4 ). However, PE, described as withdrawal or withholding life-sustaining treatment, is ethically acceptable for a patient capable of decision-making, and if an intervention is not expected to achieve the patients’ goals for care or desired quality of life ( 4 ).

The contributions of this study are as follows: ( i ) quantitative assessment of medical students’ approval rate for AE, PE and PAS over the last ten years, ( ii ) analysis of the most common arguments validating such practices, and ( iii ) evaluation of the variables that can influence a personal position on the topic. This study aimed at answering the following questions: What is the percentage of euthanasia or PAE approval among medical students? What are the most common arguments associated with the approval or rejection of euthanasia or PAE? What are the variables affecting the approval or rejection of euthanasia and PAE?

This study was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) ( 5 ) ( Figure 1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is JMEHM-13-22-g001.jpg

PRISMA flowchart

The literature searches in April 2019, included articles published between January 2009 and December 2018, and focused on PubMed and Web of Science as the primary electronic databases. The databases were searched using the following search strings: (medical students) AND (euthanasia OR Physician-assisted suicide).

Our review focused on original cross-sectional descriptive studies in English whose main population, or part of it, was composed of medical students and quantified their personal views regarding the legalization or practice of PAS or euthanasia.

Only original descriptive articles that quantitatively addressed the first focused question in the last ten years were included. The excluded cases were the followings: ( i ) Review articles, book chapters, conference papers, and letters to the editor; ( ii ) Non-neutral reports, where the authors expressed their views or stated an opinion on the topic; ( iii ) Articles whose main population consisted of physicians, nurses, or any group other than undergraduate medical students; ( iv ) Articles for which the complete text could not be found online; and, ( v ) Articles written in languages other than English.

Records were initially screened according to the titles and abstracts. Relevant abstracts and articles without an abstract were selected for full-text review. Articles selected in the first screening were carefully read and analyzed to determine whether they addressed the first focused question and whether they fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Further analyses were made to determine if they described any argument or variable that could persuade medical students to take a positive or negative side.

A total of 135 articles were identified after the database search (63 in PubMed and 72 in Web of Science); 97 non-duplicate documents were screened by the title and abstract. From the 25 articles eligible for full-text review, 13 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for further analysis ( 6 - 18 ). Reasons for exclusion of 12 remaining articles were as follows: ( i ) use of a language other than English (n = 2); ( ii ) absence of a full-text version online (n = 3); ( iii ) inclusion of a study population different than undergraduate medical students (n =3); and, ( iv ) failure to address the first focused question (n = 4).

From the 13 selected articles, seven ( 6 - 12 ) were published between 2014 and 2018 and six ( 13 - 18 ) were published between 2009 and 2013. Two studies were from Africa ( 7 , 9 ), four were from America ( 6 , 8 , 12 , 14 ), one was from Asia ( 15 ), and six were from Europe ( 10 , 11 , 13 , 16 - 18 ). The countries involved included Austria (n = 1) ( 18 ), Belgium (n = 1) ( 11 ), Brazil (n = 1) ( 12 ), Canada (n = 1) ( 14 ), Germany (n = 1) ( 10 ), Greece (n = 1) ( 18 ), Mexico (n = 2) ( 6 , 14 ), Pakistan (n = 1) ( 15 ), Poland (n = 2) ( 13 , 16 ), and South Africa (n = 2) ( 7 , 9 ).

Eight articles addressed the approval rate of medical students regarding legalization of AE, PE or PAS ( 7 - 9 , 11 , 13 , 15 - 17 ); ten stated a positive attitude toward AE exclusively ( 6 - 12 , 15 , 17 , 18 ); six addressed acceptance of PE ( 6 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 18 ); and, six addressed acceptance of PAS ( 7 , 8 , 10 , 14 , 15 , 18 ). Two articles addressed the students’ personal views on AE, PE or PAS, whether exclusively or conjunctively ( 13 , 16 ). The results are summarized in Table 1 .

Percentage of approval for AE, PE, and PAS, as well as the legalization of euthanasia or PAS.

Out of eight articles that addressed the positive views on legalization of the procedures, the lowest acceptance rate was 26% ( 13 ) and the highest 97% ( 11 ). The lowest and highest acceptance rates were as follows: ( i ) 14.2% ( 15 ) and 52% ( 18 ) for AE, ( ii ) 45.7% ( 12 ) and 83.3% ( 10 ) for PE, and ( iii ) 32.8% ( 15 ) and 69.7% ( 18 ) for PAS. The highest acceptance rates in the four scenarios were observed among students in European countries ( 10 - 12 , 15 ), while the lowest acceptance rates were related to Pakistan ( 15 ) and Brazil ( 12 ).

Eight articles ( 6 - 8 , 11 , 15 - 18 ) were related to second main question addressing students’ arguments for or against the practice of AE, PE or PAS. The most common arguments supporting AE, PE or PAS practice were as follows: ( i ) patients’ autonomy (n = 6) ( 6 - 8 , 11 , 16 , 17 ); ( ii ) relief of suffering or beneficence (n = 4) ( 7 , 11 , 16 , 17 ); and, ( iii ) the thought that terminally-ill patients are additional burden (n = 2) ( 11 , 18 ). Less relevant arguments included the followings: ( i ) legality of the procedure ( 6 ); ( ii ) educational or clinical experience ( 8 ); and, ( iii ) quality of life or life expectancy ( 18 ). The most common arguments against AE, PE or PAS were the followings: ( i ) religious or personal beliefs (n = 4) ( 7 , 8 , 15 , 18 ); and, ( ii ) “slippery slope” argument or risk of abuse (n = 4) ( 7 , 8 , 16 , 18 ); and, ( iii ) physicians’ responsibility to preserve life ( 7 , 18 ). The results are summarized in Table 2 .

Students’ arguments in favor or against the practice of euthanasia or PAS

Regarding the third focused question, 11 articles ( 6 - 9 , 11 , 12 , 14 - 18 ) highlighted variables that could cause the medical students to approve or disapprove AE, PE or PAS practices. Religion was the most significant variable that had a negative impact (n = 7) ( 6 - 8 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 16 ), followed by religiosity (n = 5) ( 6 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 18 ) as the second most significant variable. Moreover, university of origin for the medical students (n = 3) ( 12 , 14 , 16 ) and previous experience with euthanasia or palliative sedation in a relative (n = 1) ( 11 ) were other named variables. Non-significant variables included the followings: ( i ) age (n = 3) ( 6 , 12 , 17 ); ( ii ) previous academic experience regarding end-of-life decisions (n = 2) ( 11 , 16 ); ( iii ) family income (n = 1) ( 12 ); and, ( iv ) size or place of residence (n = 1) ( 16 ). Variable of gender in influencing the students’ opinions showed mixed results: significant ( 6 , 16 ) and non-significant ( 11 , 12 , 14 , 17 , 18 ). Similarly, for variable of medical students’ current academic year, three studies considered it to be significant ( 9 , 15 , 17 ) and one study reported it as irrelevant ( 6 ). The summarized results are shown in Table 3 .

Significant variables that affect the posture of medical students towards euthanasia or PAS

Despite the great diversity of opinions regarding AE, PE and PAS, the percentage of approval for AE was lower than those of PE or PAS in all analyzed scenarios ( 6 - 18 ). Regarding AE approval, the study of Kontaxakis et al. was the only one that reported an acceptance percentage higher than 50%, under special circumstances ( 18 ). If these results are compared to those of other groups, such as general population ( 19 ) or post-graduate students ( 11 ), the approval rate is usually higher than 50%. In contrast, physicians tend to show a negative attitude toward the topic ( 19 , 20 ). The relevance of clinical experience, as a variable that could influence the acceptance of euthanasia or PAS, was discussed by Marais et al. ( 9 ) and Hassan et al. ( 15 ), who reported different results depending on whether the students were at preclinical level (without active experience with patients) or on clinical rotations. Marais et al. stated that higher clinical-level correlated to medical students’ greater empathy towards patients and respect for their autonomy. This correlation was demonstrated by a 20% difference in acceptance rate for AE between preclinical and clinical students, which dropped to 10% when they were asked if they will perform an assisted-dying procedure ( 9 ). Hassan et al. found lower acceptance rate for euthanasia or PAS among senior medical students; the attitude toward euthanasia, however, split to 50% against and 50% undecided, highlighting a higher percentage of indecision among seniors than freshmen ( 15 ). Seniors stated that through clinical exposure, medical students become more aware that some diseases are incurable ( 15 ). However, a 2018 study by the authors of article ( 6 ) did not identify academic rank as a variable that could influence medical students’ attitude toward this topic. That study focused only on preclinical students in the first three years of medical school, justifying the uniformity of opinions and highlighting that exposure to patients affected medical students’ views regardless of their academic school year.

Until now, AE has been legalized in Belgium ( 11 ), the Netherlands ( 19 ), Luxemburg ( 19 ), Colombia ( 21 ), Uruguay ( 21 ), and Canada ( 8 ); Three countries where AE is legal are European ( 11 , 19 ), which justify that why the majority of the papers that met the present study’s inclusion criteria were published in this continent where the debate is open. In Belgium, the only country included in this study where AE is currently legalized, Roelans et al. reported that the approval percentage of the legalization of euthanasia to be 97% ( 11 ); a real legal environment, along with personal or professional experience in scenarios of assisted death, can create more favorable attitude among medical students ( 11 ). In Canada, another country where these practices are legalized, the study by Bator et al. was performed a year before the Canadian laws’ modification to abolish the penalization of euthanasia ( 8 ). These political discussions may affect medical students’ attitude toward acceptance.

Religion is defined as a moral institution with a unified system of values, beliefs and practices related to what is considered sacred ( 22 - 23 ). Religion is one of the most common variables mentioned by researchers to influence medical students’ views on euthanasia ( 6 - 8 , 11 , 12 , 14 - 16 , 18 ). Moreover, religion affects several other areas of medicine, such as adherence to treatment or the decision-making process in high-risk procedures ( 22 ). In seven studies that described religion as a relevant variable, five found Catholicism to be the most frequently self-reported religion ( 6 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 16 ), and less frequently ones were Christianity ( 7 ) and Islam ( 15 ). Conversely, the medical students who considered themselves atheists or those who did not actively practice any religion tended to have a more positive view towards AE, PE, and PAS for both patients and themselves ( 8 , 11 , 12 , 14 - 16 , 18 ). Different, sometimes conflicting views can be observed among various religions. In 2007, Sprung et al. studied the attitude of physicians towards PE; Catholics, Protestants and those with no religious affiliation compared to Jews, Greek Orthodoxies or Muslims had higher acceptance rate for therapy withdrawal ( 23 ). According to the Roman Catholic religion, practitioners are not obligated to ward off death at all costs, but they should not deliberately intervene to accelerate this process ( 24 ). The principle of “sanctity of life” categorizes life as a basic value as it establishes a direct relationship with God, and condemns any intervention that seeks to end this relationship ( 24 ). This principle could explain a more negative attitude toward AE and a mildly open posture toward PE. Studies that described a majority of the Catholic population and addressed the attitude of PE had acceptance rate higher than 50%, except one study from Poland ( 16 ). Leppert et al. did not separate the opinions in favor of or against AE, PE, or PAS, and considered that the students’ view could be influenced by the statements of the last Polish Pope, John Paul II ( 16 ). Regarding Islam, negative attitude is generally stated toward the topic ( 7 , 15 , 23 ). The Quran forbids self-harm and consenting to end life, which can be related to terminally-ill patients consenting to euthanasia ( 25 ). In Islam, death is not the final destination, and therefore a believer should keep facing difficulties despite suffering to stay alive ( 25 ). However, the concept of religion has to be differentiated from religiosity or religiousness, referring to the influence of religion on daily life and intrinsic values. A positive experience with religion, mainly described as a growing spirituality or closeness to God, empowers patients to undertake greater risks in their treatments ( 22 ). Regarding euthanasia, the greater the religiosity, the more opposition towards euthanasia ( 6 , 15 ). This association is in line with our previous study’s findings, where the participants who were described as strong believers showed a predominant negative view towards AE and PAS as well as inflexibility to change their original position in different scenarios ( 6 ). Similarly, Hassan et al. reported the lowest acceptance rate for AE, in a study involving predominately Muslim participants, which 17% of them identified themselves as very religious ( 15 ).

The main arguments on euthanasia are related to the bioethical principles. Autonomy, the most common argument stated by the medical students to support this practice ( 6 - 8 , 11 , 16 , 17 ), derives from the Greek auto (self) and nomos (rule) and refers to the individuals’ ability to make independent choices about their treatment ( 7 ). However, the state of autonomy in relation to euthanasia varies depending on whether autonomy is considered an intrinsic or moral value. In the former, patients would have free will in decision-making about their life or death ( 26 ), and in the latter —according to the Kantian perspective—death threatens autonomy by eliminating the individual who would otherwise exercise autonomy ( 27 ). Another argument to support euthanasia is relief from suffering, based on the principle of beneficence, as it considers the induction of death as a better alternative to avoid unnecessary suffering ( 28 ). The opponents of euthanasia argue that the elimination of suffering by death may not be the best alternative considering the followings: ( i ) increasing interest and research on palliative care and ( ii ) management of patients’ psychiatric conditions (e.g., depression), which may adequately relieve their suffering ( 28 , 29 ). The most common arguments against these practices were as follows: ( i ) personal and religious beliefs ( 7 , 8 , 15 , 18 ); ( ii ) risk of abuse, sometimes referred to as the “slippery slope” argument ( 7 , 8 , 16 , 18 ); and, ( iii ) the physicians’ role in preserving life ( 7 , 18 ). According to the argument of the “slippery slope”, if specific types of actions receive permission, then society will be coerced in permitting further morally wrong actions ( 30 , 31 ). As a classic example of this argument, in the Netherlands, where initially euthanasia was only approved for terminally-patients, the criteria were later expanded to allow euthanasia for chronically-ill patients and those suffering from severe psychiatric conditions. Subsequently, euthanasia was legally allowed for incompetent patients, including children ( 31 ). Opponents of the “slippery slope” argument state that for euthanasia to be considered as part of the risk of abuse argument, it must initially be condemned as morally wrong, an argument that in their opinion is dependent merely on personal experience ( 31 ). The final argument against euthanasia is the Hippocratic Oath’s view of the physicians’ role as healers. The Hippocratic Oath was first proclaimed in 400 BC and established one of the earliest codes of ethics for the medical profession ( 32 ). Because of its tradition and relevance, it is still frequently taken by medical students during their training or upon its completion. One of its lines states that physicians will not give poison to anyone though asked to do so, nor they would suggest such a plan ( 6 ), a line that contradicts modern-day views of euthanasia. This presumptive allegiance to the Hippocratic Oath may explain why students from newer, urban, public, and bigger universities usually have a more positive attitude towards euthanasia and PAS than students from older schools with more traditional values ( 12 , 14 , 16 ).

The relevance of understanding the medical students’ attitudes towards euthanasia and PAS lies not only in their values as present-time insights, but also as input data to generate strategies that optimize their education and address future medical dilemmas. Even though medical students usually have sufficient knowledge about euthanasia ( 15 ), they lack understanding of end-of-life care. Eyigör stated that most medical students believe that they have not received a complete education on palliative care or training on communication skills regarding palliative-care patients ( 33 ). A better understanding of end-of-life care, including euthanasia and PAS, for medical students, is essential, even if these practices are not currently legalized in their countries as related debates on the topic are not expected to end shortly.

A major limitation of this study was the use of non-standardized questionnaires to research the main focused questions, as they provide varied responses that are difficult to categorize and analyze adequately. Even if a students’ view on euthanasia or PAS is markedly positive or negative, the format of the questionnaire may not accurately address the real answer. Moreover, questions asked directly may obtain different answers than those asked indirectly; questions with clinical case scenarios or with only binary true or false answers could further alter the results. Another limitation was the use of only two electronic databases, which could narrow results. This limitation could also limit the number of countries included in the study, which may prevent the global perspective from being reflected.

Seeking a global perspective from medical students over a particular course and then describing that perspective is complex. This complexity is not only due to the great diversity of opinions, but also due to the geographical, social, cultural, and temporal context influencing their decisions. This study aimed to objectively describe the medical students’ attitude towards AE, PE, and PAS practices as well as to analyze the variables and arguments surrounding these practices. To summarize, PE and PAS are more accepted than AE, and the most critical arguments in favor of these practices are the respect for autonomy and the relief of suffering. Personal beliefs and the social role of the physician as a healer are the most common arguments against these practices. Even though a consensus may not be reached easily or soon, continuing the discussion about end-of-life decisions is essential because the debates over these practices and the necessity for such decisions will unavoidably linger. Medical students must be aware of different perspectives on the topic to make an informed decision in related circumstances.

Citation to this article:

Gutierrez-Castillo A, Gutierrez-Castillo J, Guadarrama-Conzuelo F, Jimenez-Ruiz A, Ruiz-Sandoval JL. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a systematic review of medical students’ attitudes in the last 10 years. J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2020; 13: 22

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

- 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

Moral dimensions

A utilitarian argument against euthanasia.

Rapid response to:

Related content
Article metrics
Rapid responses

Rapid Response:

Tannsjo is correct to observe that the same philosophical starting points can be used to arrive at very different outlooks. For example, I can use utilitarianism to oppose euthanasia.

Utilitarianism is an ethical approach that attempts to maximise happiness for society or humanity. Its founder, Jeremy Bentham, claimed that “nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think.” (1) He deveolped the proposition thus: “it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.” However, his subsequent reflection that “it is vain to talk of the interest of the community without understanding what is the interest of the individual” supposedly threw his model into confusion. Which had become more important to him: the individual or the greatest number?

I believe he still favoured community happiness over individual happiness. After all, he believed that the role of law was to delimit autonomy, and that the creation of rights destroyed all notion of liberty. For example, in Anarchial Fallacies (2) he wrote: “The great enemies of public peace are the selfish and dissocial passions, necessary as they are, the one to the very existence of each individual, the other to his security. On the part of these affections, a deficiency in point of strength is never to be apprehended: all that is to be apprehended in respect of them, is to be apprehended on the side of their excess. Society is held together only by the sacrifices that men can be induced to make of the gratifications they demand: to obtain these sacrifices is the great difficulty, the great task of government. What has been the object, the perpetual and palpable object, of this declaration of pretended rights? To add as much force as possible to these passions, already but too strong, - - to burst the cords that hold them in, -- to say to the selfish passions, there - everywhere -- is your prey! -- to the angry passions, there - everywhere -- is your enemy.”

How might Bentham have applied these ideas to the legalisation of euthanasia? Firstly, euthanasia might eliminate physical and existential pain in the person wishing to be euthanased. It might also provide some comfort to anyone who believed that the person would be better off dead, although this sense of comfort would presumably be counterbalanced by the grief of bereavement. It would actually create emotional pain in those opposed to euthanasia, either through intimate involvement with a particular case or through a general objection to the whole principle. Secondly, a euthanased person cannot be confidently described as being in a state of pleasure. Even third parties who thought that death was the best option could hardly be described as pleased after the death: unless malicious, they would probably express regret that euthanasia seemed the most appropriate choice. Those opposed to the act from the outset would definitely be displeased. Therefore, I suggest that a chain of causes and effect that both eliminates and creates pain whilst pleasing nobody is unlikely to measure up favourably to the utilitarian standard of right and wrong as understood by Bentham. Euthanasia would not have featured as part of his delimited autonomy, and he rejected the notion of rights.

Philosophy often has a superficial softness to it, but I often find it very harsh for the simple reason that its objectivity can trivialise something very important: human feeling. For example, Bentham once said: “The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"” I suspect that he was not afraid of answering in the affirmative, particularly when rights, which in his eyes were misconceived notions, potentially threatened the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Whatever the outcome of the parliamentary debate on assisted dying, there will still be pain and there will still be pleasure. We must only hope that the whole process will help generate the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

(1) Bentham J. The Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1781

(2) Bentham J. Critique of the Doctrine of Inalienable, Natural Rights. From Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies, vol. 2 of Bowring (ed.), Works, 1843.

Competing interests: No competing interests

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.

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

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

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...

Take ClearIAS Mock Exams: Analyse Your Progress

Analyse Your Performance and Track Your All-India Ranking

Ias/ips/ifs online coaching: target cse 2025.

Are you struggling to finish the UPSC CSE syllabus without proper guidance?

IMAGES

Euthanasia Argument
Euthanasia Position Paper
Euthanasia And The Right Of Euthanasia Essay
Euthanasia Essay
Euthanasia Essay
Debating Euthanasia: Perspectives on Life and Death Free Essay Example

VIDEO

Rally against Euthanasia, February 27th., 2024 Ottawa ON @MaureenTeresa1
ESSAY: Euthanasia
- A warning from Canada
Euthanasia between Legalization and Criminalization. Professor Amer Fakhoury
Medical Ethics

COMMENTS

Non-faith-based arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia
This article is a complement to "A Template for Non-Religious-Based Discussions Against Euthanasia" by Melissa Harintho, Nathaniel Bloodworth, and E. Wesley Ely which appeared in the February 2015 Linacre Quarterly.Herein we build upon Daniel Sulmasy's opening and closing arguments from the 2014 Intelligence Squared debate on legalizing assisted suicide, supplemented by other non-faith ...
Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments
Palliative Care. Physician Obligation. Financial Motivations. 1. Legalization. "The right to die should be a matter of personal choice. We are able to choose all kinds of things in life from who we marry to what kind of work we do and I think when one comes to the end of one's life, whether you have a terminal illness or whether you're ...
BBC
Religious arguments. Euthanasia is against the word and will of God. Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life. Suffering may have value. Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a ...
Euthanasia: Every For and Against Essay (Article Review)
Euthanasia: Every For and Against Essay (Article Review) Euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is a highly debated issue. This issue is outlawed in almost all major countries. Proponents for euthanasia advocate the ending of pain for those who cannot otherwise survive any terminal disease (eHow). On the other hand, the opponents to ...
Euthanasia and assisted dying: the illusion of autonomy—an essay by Ole
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 ...
Arguments against Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide
This essay about the ethical and societal concerns surrounding euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) examines the significant implications of legalizing these practices. It highlights how such measures could potentially undermine trust in the medical profession, where doctors are traditionally seen as protectors of life.
Voluntary Euthanasia
The entry sets out five conditions often said to be necessary for anyone to be a candidate for legalized voluntary euthanasia (and, with appropriate qualifications, physician-assisted suicide), outlines the moral case advanced by those in favor of legalizing voluntary euthanasia, and discusses the five most important objections made by those who deny that voluntary euthanasia is morally ...
An Analysis of Arguments for and Against Euthanasia and Assisted
What should we tell medical students and residents about euthanasia and assisted suicide?. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 46, Issue. 2, p. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 46, Issue. 2, p.
Legal And Ethical Issues Of Euthanasia: Argumentative Essay
It has been a pertinent issue in human rights discourse as it also affects ethical and legal issues pertaining to patients and health care providers. This paper discusses the legal and ethical ...
An Argument Against Euthanasia
An Argument Against Euthanasia. There are many approaches to the concept and practice of euthanasia. In one definition, euthanasia is described as a quick death in which pain is almost absent. 1 However, there is one common understanding of euthanasia in the modern society. Euthanasia is the ending of a person's life to help the particular ...
Argumentative Essay Against Euthanasia
General Arguments Against Euthanasia: 1-One should not interfere in the doings of God: As God has a purpose to everything. Counter point: A person in favor of it usually says how one can be sure of what god wants or what god has in His mind. God has given us intellect to make one's life as better as possible.
Arguments in Support and Against Euthanasia
The aim of this article is to present and confront the arguments in support of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, and the arguments against. The arguments for and against euthanasia are listed and discussed to literature cited. Euthanasia is an act of mercy, and, basically means to take a deliberate action with the express intention of ...
158 Euthanasia Topics & Essay Examples
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.
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a systematic review of
The most common arguments against euthanasia were as follows: (i) religious and personal beliefs (n = 4), (ii) the "slippery slope" argument and the risk of abuse (n = 4), and (iii) the physician's role in preserving life (n = 2). Religion (n = 7), religiosity (n = 5), and the attributes of the medical school of origin (n = 3) were the ...
A utilitarian argument against euthanasia
A utilitarian argument against euthanasia. Tannsjo is correct to observe that the same philosophical starting. points can be used to arrive at very different outlooks. For example, I. can use utilitarianism to oppose euthanasia. Utilitarianism is an ethical approach that attempts to maximise. happiness for society or humanity.
Euthanasia
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 ...
Arguments Against Euthanasia Essay
Arguments Against Euthanasia Essay. 973 Words4 Pages. Euthanasia is a debatable topic that has recently gained a lot of attention. It is also referred to as physician assisted suicide. Euthanasia was first created and used for terminally ill patients or patients who live with very painful diseases. It is an option that some terminally-ill ...
Against Euthanasia Essay
Arguments For And Against Euthanasia Essay Euthanasia is the practice of ending an individual's life in order to relieve them from an incurable disease or unbearable suffering. The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek word for "good death" and originally referred to as "intentional killing" ( Patelarou, Vardavas, Fioraki, Alegakis ...
Argumentative Essay Against Euthanasia Free Essay Example
Essay, Pages 3 (621 words) Views. 2370. Introduction. Euthanasia is the practice of deliberately killing a person to spare him or her from having to deal with more pain and suffering. This is always a controversial issue because of the moral and ethical components that are involved. This paper will discuss the arguments against euthanasia.
Arguments for and Against Euthanasia with relation to Switzerland
Arguments against euthanasia have discussed license for murder, right to life, reduction of health costs and ambiguity in definition of "terminally ill". These arguments have explained that only God has right to take life, and that euthanasia has potential to be misused, if legalized. ... Sample Undergraduate 1st International Law Essay.

Arguments against Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide

Cite this page

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Bibliography

Voluntary Euthanasia

1. Introduction

4.1 Objection 1

4.2 Objection 2

4.3 Objection 3

4.4 Objection 4

4.5 Objection 5

Support SEP

158 Euthanasia Topics & Essay Examples

🏆 Best Euthanasia Essay Examples & Topics

📑 Aspects to Cover in an Euthanasia Essay

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a systematic review of medical students’ attitudes in the last 10 years

Javier Gutierrez-Castillo

Jose Luis Ruiz-Sandoval

Introduction

Conflict of Interests

Search form

Moral dimensions

Rapid Response:

Euthanasia – Arguments in Favour and Against

Voluntary, Non-Voluntary, and Involuntary Euthanasia

Passive vs Active euthanasia

Euthanasia debate

Arguments in Favor

Arguments against

Euthanasia in India

The Aruna Shanbaug Case

PIL filed by Common Cause

Government’s endorsement of Passive Euthanasia

Aim IAS, IPS, or IFS?

About ClearIAS Team

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

UPSC Online Preparation

Take ClearIAS Mock Exams: Analyse Your Progress

Analyse Your Performance and Track Your All-India Ranking

Are you struggling to finish the UPSC CSE syllabus without proper guidance?

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS