Non-faith-based arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia

Area of Science:

• Bioethics
• Medical Ethics
• Public Health Policy

Background:

• Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are subjects of ongoing ethical and legal debate.
• Discussions often involve religious perspectives, necessitating non-faith-based arguments.
• Existing literature provides a foundation for exploring secular objections.

Purpose of the Study:

• To present four distinct non-religious arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.
• To supplement existing non-faith-based discourse on end-of-life issues.
• To provide a framework for secular ethical considerations regarding assisted dying.

Main Methods:

• Building upon existing arguments from prominent bioethicists and debates.
• Synthesizing non-faith-based reasoning against assisted suicide and euthanasia.
• Developing four core arguments: "it offends me," slippery slope, pain alleviation, and physician integrity.

Main Results:

• Argument 1: "It offends me" posits that suicide devalues human life.
• Argument 2: The "slippery slope" suggests that limits on euthanasia erode over time.
• Argument 3: "Pain can be alleviated" highlights advancements in palliative care and therapeutics.
• Argument 4: "Physician integrity and patient trust" asserts that participating in suicide violates professional ethics and patient confidence.

Conclusions:

• Non-religious ethical frameworks can provide robust opposition to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.
• These arguments address concerns about human dignity, societal impact, medical capabilities, and professional integrity.
• The findings support a continued ethical debate on assisted dying from secular viewpoints.