Medical Aid in Dying, Physician-Assisted Suicide, and Euthanasia

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Medical Aid ◽  
Aid In Dying

Aid-in-Dying: Should We Decriminalize Physician-Assisted Suicide and Physician-Committed Euthanasia?

1992 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 369-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria T. CeloCruz
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Active Euthanasia ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
News Stories ◽  
Voluntary Active Euthanasia ◽  
Aid In Dying

Recent news stories, medical journal articles, and two state voter referenda have publicized physicians’ providing their patients with aid-in-dying. This Note distinguishes two components of aid-in-dying: physician-assisted suicide and physiciancommitted voluntary active euthanasia. The Note traces these components’ distinct historical and legal treatments and critically examines arguments for and against both types of action. This Note concludes that aid-in-dying measures should limit legalization initiatives to physician-assisted suicide and should not embrace physician-committed voluntary active euthanasia.

AMA Reconsiders Opposition to Physician-Assisted Suicide

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (10) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Ralph A. Capone ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Annual Meeting ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
Human Life ◽  
The United States ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Judicial Affairs ◽  
Aid In Dying ◽  
Recent Edition

In 1847, the American Medical Association established the first professional code of ethics for physicians in the United States. Expanded over the years to meet the needs of the medical profession, its most recent edition, adopted in 2016, includes a statement of AMA principles of medical ethics and eleven sets of opinions on various topics. After 169 years of opposition to physician involvement in directly causing patients’ deaths, the AMA is considering a change in its position—a position that has always averred the sacredness of every human life, asserting that the physician’s role is to cure when possible, care always, and ultimately err on the side of protecting and preserving human life. Following its annual meeting this past June, the AMA House of Delegates recommended that the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs study aid-in-dying as an end-of- life option and report back at the annual meeting in 2017.

scholarly journals Reasons to Reject Physician Assisted Suicide/Physician Aid in Dying

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. 683-686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A. O’Rourke ◽  
M. Colleen O’Rourke ◽  
Matthew F. Hudson
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Aid In Dying

Goodbye, Thomas

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret P. Battin
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Social Acceptance ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Summa Theologiae ◽  
Pursuit Of Happiness ◽  
Moral Standards ◽  
Central Case ◽  
Aid In Dying ◽  
The Right

This chapter, following the format of Thomas Aquinas’s repudiation of suicide inSumma Theologiae, reviews the three central arguments against physician-assisted suicide: (1) suicide is killing and thus violates universal human moral standards against killing; (2) if physician-assisted suicide becomes legal, it could corrupt physicians’ integrity; and (3) the risk of abuse. It responds to each argument, claiming that none is strong enough to defeat the central case for legalization, tacit recognition, and social acceptance of physician aid in dying. It then offers two basic grounds for holding that physician aid-in-dying is morally permissible: (1) the basic principle of liberty, also called freedom or self-determination (limited by the harm principle), a central principle of a free society; and (2) the right to avoid suffering and pain, grounded in the right to the pursuit of happiness—interpreted as entailing the right to try to avoid unhappiness, including suffering and pain.

scholarly journals Are the Distinctions Drawn in the Debate about End-of-Life Decision Making “Principled”? If Not, How Much Does it Matter?

2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yale Kamisar
Keyword(s):  
End Of Life ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Good Death ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Death With Dignity ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
Dying Patients ◽  
Aid In Dying ◽  
End Of Life Decision ◽  
Life Decision

I sometimes wonder whether some proponents of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) or physician-assisted death (PAD) think they own the copyright to such catchy phrases as “death with dignity” and “a good death” so that if you are against PAS or PAD, then you must be against a dignified death or a good death. If one removes the quotation marks around phrases like “aid-in-dying” or “compassionate care for the dying,” I am not opposed to such end-of-life care either. Indeed, how could anybody be against this type of care?I do not want to abandon dying patients anymore than Dr. Timothy Quill does. Although, unfortunately, it will not always be easy to achieve the desired result, I agree with him that it ought to be a goal of medicine “to help people die well, to help them receive a good death” — or at least “the best possible” death under the circumstances. I part company with Professor Quill, however, when he urges us to change the law in the majority of our states so that in some circumstances patients may achieve a “good death” or a “dignified” one by means of lethal drugs.

Physician Aid-in-Dying: Toward A “Harm Reduction” Approach

1996 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Heilig ◽  
Stephen Jamison
Keyword(s):  
Social Issue ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
The United States ◽  
Active Euthanasia ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Bioethical Issue ◽  
The World ◽  
Aid In Dying ◽  
Open Discussion ◽  
The 1960S

As a bioethical and social issue, euthanasia has become in the 1990s what abor- tion was in the 1960s. Around the world, a de facto taboo on open discussion of the practice is seemingly falling by the wayside, as recognition increases that “active” euthanasia is taking place in spite of social and legal prohibitions. Euthanasia, or more specifically physician-assisted suicide, has become the most visible bioethical issue of the present era; and in the United States the debate has taken on a prominence and urgency unprecedented in our nation's history.

Evaluating the Dissent in State of Oregon v. Ashcroft: Implications for the Patient-Physician Relationship and the Democratic Process

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 142-153
Author(s):  
Bryan Hilliard
Keyword(s):  
End Of Life ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Federal Intervention ◽  
Practice Of Medicine ◽  
Aid In Dying ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Impact

Over the past decade or so, no issue in medical ethics or bioethics law has raised more concerns about federal intervention in the practice of medicine, about judicial attempts to craft health policy, or about the wisdom of public mandates directing specific health care initiatives than the issue of physician-assisted suicide. State voter referenda, lower and federal court cases (including two U.S. Supreme Court decisions), proposed legislation in both houses of Congress, and orders and determinations from agencies within the executive branch of two administrations are representative of the kinds of actions taken in the last ten years implicating medical care at the end of life. Whether the intent was to codify into law physician-assisted suicide, to deny a constitutional right of assisted suicide, or to make “easier” physicians' efforts to alleviate intractable suffering at the risk of hastening death, or to prohibit physician aid in dying altogether, the impact on the patient-doctor relationship and on our understanding of what constitutes dignified and humane care at the end of life is undeniable.

Oregon v. Ashcroft: The Battle over the Soul of Medicine

2003 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 310-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
BEN A. RICH
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
The United States ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Death With Dignity ◽  
War Of Attrition ◽  
Dying Patients ◽  
Medical Disputes ◽  
Aid In Dying ◽  
Death With Dignity Act ◽  
Dignity Act

When one considers the protracted and continuing struggle of the citizens of Oregon to include physician-assisted suicide (also known as “physician aid in dying”) among the panoply of measures available to dying patients and the physicians who care for them, the depth and breadth of the issue becomes inescapable. The potential intractability of the dispute is illustrated by the very fact, noted in the preceding parenthetical phrase, that consensus eludes us on even the most basic of semantic points—how we are to most aptly characterize the conduct in question? The case featured in this issue's The Caduceus in Court must be examined as the latest battle in a long war of attrition waged by opponents of physician-assisted suicide against the Oregon Death with Dignity Act (“the Oregon Act”). After briefly reviewing that history, I will then consider the details of Oregon v. Ashcroft and the implications of the litigation not only for the care of dying patients but also for the regulation of medical practice in the United States and, more broadly still, the search for resolution of serious medical disputes in a democratic society.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document