Physician assisted suicide: a new look at the arguments

Area of Science:

• Medical Ethics
• Philosophy of Medicine
• Bioethics

Background:

• Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is a contentious issue with significant ethical and legal debate.
• Arguments against PAS often stem from consequentialist and deontological ethical frameworks.
• Real-world data from jurisdictions like Oregon and the Netherlands provide empirical context for these debates.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically evaluate the primary arguments against physician-assisted suicide.
• To assess the empirical basis of consequentialist claims regarding PAS.
• To analyze specific critiques, including Susan M. Wolf's feminist argument and prominent deontological objections.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical analysis of ethical arguments.
• Examination of empirical evidence from legal PAS practices.
• Case study review of Oregon's Death with Dignity Act and the Netherlands' PAS practice.

Main Results:

• Consequentialist arguments against PAS rely on predictions whose likelihood of realization is uncertain.
• Susan M. Wolf's feminist critique and major deontological arguments against PAS are found to be unconvincing.
• Existing arguments against PAS do not provide sufficient grounds to reject its legalization.

Conclusions:

• No current argument against physician-assisted suicide holds sufficient ethical or empirical weight.
• The lack of compelling arguments against PAS suggests a rationale for its legalization.
• Further ethical deliberation may be needed, but the burden of proof lies with opponents of PAS.