Assisted Dying in Unjust Conditions

Area of Science:

• Bioethics
• Medical Law
• Public Health Policy

Background:

• Euthanasia and/or assisted suicide (EAS) in unjust conditions is a prominent topic in public and academic discourse.
• Existing academic defenses of EAS in unjust conditions often rely on anti-discrimination or harm reduction arguments, focusing on legal exclusion.
• These arguments may not fully address the profound moral concerns associated with EAS under unjust circumstances.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically evaluate existing arguments for EAS in unjust conditions.
• To propose an alternative policy framework for EAS that addresses underlying moral concerns.
• To compare the moral implications of current EAS policies with a hypothetical policy guaranteeing basic care.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of existing academic arguments concerning EAS in unjust conditions.
• Conceptual comparison between policies allowing EAS in unjust conditions and a hypothetical policy guaranteeing basic care.
• Ethical evaluation of the moral superiority of different EAS policy frameworks.

Main Results:

• Current arguments for EAS in unjust conditions, focusing on anti-discrimination and harm reduction, inadequately address deep moral concerns.
• A hypothetical EAS policy that mandates a guarantee of basic care from the outset effectively mitigates the moral concerns associated with EAS in unjust conditions.
• This care-focused policy is argued to be morally superior to policies permitting EAS without such guarantees.

Conclusions:

• The moral concerns surrounding euthanasia and/or assisted suicide in unjust conditions necessitate a policy approach beyond current anti-discrimination or harm reduction frameworks.
• A policy prioritizing a guarantee of basic care before considering EAS offers a more ethically sound approach.
• This revised policy framework aims to preemptively address the root causes of moral distress in end-of-life decisions.