physician assisted suicide thesis statement

Thesis Statement For Physician Assisted Suicide

The Right to Die 1) Introduction a) Thesis statement: Physician assisted suicide offers patients a choice of getting out of their pain and misery, presents a way to help those who are already dead mentally because of how much a disease has taken over them, proves to be a great option in many states its legal in, and puts the family at ease knowing their love one is out of pain. i) The use of physician assisted death is used in many different countries and some states. ii) Many people who chose this option are fighting a terminal illness. iii) The legalization has been talked about among many states and countries for years. 2) Body a) Physician assisted death has a long history. i) Ancient Greeks and Romans support Euthanasia (assisted suicide). ii) The idea that it should be illegal to help someone commit suicide is most often ascribed to the Biblical Commandment: Thou Shalt Not …show more content…

iii) Euthanasia contains a much smaller chance for mistakes and may be necessary in cases where a patient is too sick for self-administration. iv) While Euthanasia is banned in most countries and all states in US, it is physician assisted dying or PAD that has been allowed in some states such as Oregon, Montana, Washington, etc. on grounds of compassion. c) The pros of physician assisted death. i) People have the right to die with dignity and in a humane way. ii) Some people just lose their will to live and should be supported on this matter. iii) Patients have the right to the kind of treatment they want. 3) Conclusion a) Physician assisted suicide can help treat the terminally ill how they would like to be treated. b) The long history of assisted suicide speaks for itself in the matter of if it should be legal or

The Right To Assisted Suicide Pros And Cons

The right to assisted suicide is a heavily controversial and debated over topic that concerns people all around the United States. The arguments go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to end their life with the assistance of a doctor or physician. Some people are against it because of moral and religious reasons. Others are for it because of their compassions and respect for unhappy patients waiting to die naturally. Assisted suicide is prohibited by common law or criminal statute in all 50 U.S. states; medical aid in dying is specifically authorized in 5 states: Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, and California.

Pros And Cons Of Physician Assisted Suicide

Physician assisted suicide, although legal in some states, should remain illegal because it goes against religious and moral beliefs. “In physician assisted suicide, the physician provides the necessary means or information and the patient performs the act” (Endlink). Supporters of assisted-suicide laws believe that mentally competent people who are in misery and have no chance of long-term survival, should have the right to die if and when they choose. I agree that people should have the right to refuse life-saving treatments, written in the patient bill of rights.

Physician Assisted Suicide Argument

Death is inevitable, it is something all living creatures must endure on this side of eternity. There is a multitude who will not be able to determine or choose when that time happens, life circumstances are usually out of the controlling grips of humanity. Despite that truth, as of 2015 there are five states in the U.S.A. where terminally ill persons eighteen or older with no more than six months to live are allowed to take their life with the assistance of a physician. California, Montana, Vermont, Washington, and Oregon, have all legalized the practice of physician assisted suicide (USA Today, PAS Dignity 2015). The act is generally committed by way of a prescribed lethal dose of medications intended to speed up the process of the patient 's

Essay On Physician Assisted Suicide

Physician assisted suicide is when a physician provides the means required to commit suicide, including prescribing lethal amounts of harmful drugs to a patient. In the United States alone, there is great controversy about physician assisted suicide. The issue is whether physician assisted suicide is murder or an act of sympathy for the patient. The main point is that terminally ill patients should have a right to physician assisted suicide if it meets their needs and is done properly. Physician assisted suicide is an appropriate action for the terminally ill that want to end their life in peace before it ends at the hands of the terminal disease.

Should Physician Assisted Suicide Be Legalized Essay

After researching both sides of the argument, it is clear that the benefits of physician-assisted suicide outweigh the disadvantages. The benefits of ending a patient’s pain and suffering, minimizing the emotional and financial effects on families, and preserving the right for patients to decide their own fate, supports the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.

Persuasive Essay On Physician Assisted Suicide

In the defense of Physician Assisted Suicide, a wide publicly talked about topic, it should be a choice every terminally ill patient receives. Physician Assisted suicide is when a patient is terminally ill and has no chances of recovering. The patient themselves can make the decision, with the help from their physician, to get lethally injected and end their life reducing and ending the pain. In America each state has a little over 3,000 patients that are terminally ill contact an advocacy group known as the Compassion and Choices to try to reduce end-of- life suffering and perhaps hasten their death. Physician Assisted Suicide shouldn’t be looked at as suicide, but as ending the pain and suffering from an individual whose life is going to be taken away anyway.

Legalizing Physician Assisted Suicide Argumentative Essay

The medical field is filled with opportunities and procedures that are used to help improve a patient’s standard of living and allow them to be as comfortable as possible. Physician assisted suicide (PAS) is a method, if permitted by the government, that can be employed by physicians across the world as a way to ease a patient’s pain and suffering when all else fails. PAS is, “The voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician.”-Medicinenet.com. This procedure would be the patient’s decision and would allow the patient to end their lives in a more peaceful and comfortable way, rather than suffering until the illness takes over completely. Physician assisted suicide should be permitted by the government because it allows patients to end their suffering and to pass with dignity, save their families and the hospital money, and it allows doctors to preserve vital organs to save

Ethical Essay: The Role Of Euthanasia In Medicine

This prolonging of life brings about many ethical dilemmas in the field of medicine. One of the issues is patient autonomy. The practice of euthanasia has been established to put the choice back into the hands of the patient. To better understand euthanasia, there are five different types.

Deontological Ethics: The Ethical Ethics Of Assisted Suicide

Assisted suicide is a rather controversial issue in contemporary society. When a terminally ill patient formally requests to be euthanized by a board certified physician, an ethical dilemma arises. Can someone ethically end the life of another human being, even if the patient will die in less than six months? Unlike traditional suicide, euthanasia included multiple individuals including the patient, doctor, and witnesses, where each party involved has a set of legal responsibilities. In order to understand this quandary and eventually reach a conclusion, each party involved must have their responsibilities analyzed and the underlying guidelines of moral ethics must be investigated.

Ethical Arguments Against Euthanasia

Many pro-euthanasia believers will use the autonomy argument and debate the opinion that patients should have the right to choose when and how to they want to die. In an article in the Houston Chronicle, Judge Reinhardt ruled on this topic by stating “a competent, terminally-ill adult, having lived nearly the full measure of his life, has a strong liberty interest in choosing a dignified and humane death… (De La Torre).” However, dignity cannot be measured by the level of pain or the speed in which the individual dies, because it is already a characteristic of a person’s worth as a human being (Middleton). Allowing a patient to live their life to the fullest until the very end is surely a more humane and dignified death then cutting that life short in fear of what it is coming through the practice of euthanasia. While death for these patients can be a sad ending, it does not have to condemn a person to a remaining life of sadness and negativity.

Argumentative Essay: The Benefits Of Assisted Suicide

Dying is not a person’s first choice of thinking. When people think of assisted suicide, they think it is wrong for a person to take their life. Some people think killing themselves is wrong because we were made to take care of our bodies and not harm it. Assisted suicide is necessary because a suffering person should not continue to suffer even though they know they will not make it in the end. Assisted suicide is necessary to some patients because it can make the pain go away when the patient knows they are going to die in the end, but there can be negatives to assisted suicide.

What Are The Arguments Against Euthanasia

Of all the reasons to support a terminally ill patients right to die, the most important one is this. I believe this way because Dr. David Mayo has published that euthanasia enhances personal freedom. Mayo has stated that, “People should be free to determine their fates by their own autonomous chores especially in connection with private matters, such as health,” and he argues that society encourages people to take control over all aspects of life and that should include one’s desire to control the manner of his/her own death. Dr. Mayo has the expertise in this area having served on the board of National Death with Dignity Center. This approach is the major principle of respect for patient’s autonomy.

Pros And Cons Of Euthanasia

THE EUTHANASIA CONTROVERSY Summary Euthanasia has constantly been a heated debate amongst commentators, such as the likes of legal academics, medical practitioners and legislators for many years. Hence, the task of this essay is to discuss the different faces minted on both sides of the coin – should physicians and/or loved ones have the right to participate in active euthanasia? In order to do so, the essay will need to explore the arguments for and against legalizing euthanasia, specifically active euthanasia and subsequently provide a stand on whether or not it should be an accepted practice.

Arguments Against Euthanasia

Firstly, people have their own right to decide when and how to die. Secondly, patients have the right to die with dignity. Thirdly, euthanasia actually should not be considered as an inhumane action. As a result, it will be concluded that euthanasia can be morally acceptable.

Why Is Euthanasia Legalized

If euthanasia is legalize, there might be a concern which poor patients and their family members refuse to accept treatment because of the high costing in order keeping them alive while the treatment will not guarantee that the patient will be cure. Therefore, some the them might choose to refuse treatment or even their family members do not want to spend the money on the treatment. Thus , legalize of euthanasia will serve death sentence to many disabled, elderly citizens and terminally ill patient and it might not their own will. 3.2 Euthanasia devalues human life It is one of reason why euthanasia should not be legalize.

More about Thesis Statement For Physician Assisted Suicide

Downloadable Content

The Effects and Understanding of Policy Implementation Regarding Physician-Assisted Suicide

• Masters Thesis
• Garmendez, Yanira
• Valiquette L'Heureux, Anais
• David, Ariane
• Ramirez, Nayan
• Political Science
• California State University, Northridge
• Dissertations, Academic -- CSUN -- Political Science.
• Yanira Garmendez Thesis
• http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12680/028713648
• by Yanira Garmendez

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Arguments for and Against Physician-Assisted Suicide

The right to legally end your own life is a heavily debated issue..

Posted September 16, 2020 | Reviewed by Gary Drevitch

• Suicide Risk Factors and Signs
• Find a therapist near me

Although September is designated National Suicide Awareness Month, there are those who think about suicide 12 months of the year. They may be survivors of suicide loss—the family and friends of those who have taken their own lives—or they may be people who often contemplate suicide or have already made attempts. Articles and anecdotes of suicide published during the month of September and at other times most often focus on prevention. But there’s another side to the story.

Many people believe that ending one’s own life is a human right, particularly for those who are terminally ill and suffering from indescribable pain or impairment. In the United States, however, it is only a right for those in the nine places where physician-assisted death is now legal when strict guidelines are followed. In Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Maine, Hawaii, California, Colorado, New Jersey, or the District of Columbia, eligible, terminally ill patients can legally seek medical assistance in dying from a licensed physician. In all of these places, a physician can decide whether or not to provide that assistance. At the same time, other states—Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio, South Dakota, and Utah—have, in recent years, strengthened their laws against assisted suicide. In 2018, for instance, Utah amended its manslaughter statute to include assisted suicide.

In a nutshell, it works like this: The patient orally requests legal medical assistance in dying from a qualified physician. That physician must assess and confirm the patient’s eligibility and also inform the patient of alternative treatments that provide pain relief or hospice care. At that point, a second physician must confirm the patient’s diagnosis and mental competence to make such a decision. If deemed necessary, either physician can require the patient to undergo a psychological evaluation. The patient must then make a second oral request for assistance. Once approved, the original physician writes a prescription for lethal medication (usually a high-dose barbiturate powder that must be mixed with water) that the patient can self-administer when and where they choose, as long as it is not in a public place. Some people never fill the prescription or fill the prescription but never take the medication. Those who do generally fall asleep within minutes and die peacefully within a few hours.

Several organizations have been formed to both support and oppose physician-assisted dying for moral, ethical, and legal reasons. Groups such as Death with Dignity and Compassion and Choices are in favor of what they call “medical aid in dying” and work to provide assistance and lobbying efforts to initiate legal “right to die” programs in every state. They support patient autonomy and choice, particularly in the case of terminal illness. To these groups and their supporters, most of whom come to this side of the issue as a result of agonizing personal experience, death with dignity is a human rights issue and those who are suffering are entitled to a peaceful death.

On the other side of the debate, groups like the Patients Rights Council and Choice Is an Illusion work to tighten laws against euthanasia and medical aid in dying. They fear a complete lack of oversight at the moment of death, as well as normalization of the process to the degree that patients will feel they must relieve their families of the burden they are inflicting by living with their illness. They are concerned that decisions will be made by others on behalf of those too ill to speak for themselves. These groups believe the job of a physician is to find ways to eliminate patients’ suffering, not the patients themselves. They do not believe a physician is qualified to make the decision to assist in ending a life.

In the end, no group really wants assisted suicide to be the final answer, but those who favor medical aid in dying see little recourse for those living with unbearable chronic pain , who are terminally ill, and who have no hope of improving the quality of their lives because medical science has not yet caught up with our modern potential for longevity.

Compassion and Choices: https://compassionandchoices.org/

Death with Dignity: https://www.deathwithdignity.org/

Patients Rights Council: http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/

Choice is An Illusion: https://www.choiceillusion.org/2019/04/in-last-ten-years-at-least-nine-…

Susan McQuillan is a food, health, and lifestyle writer.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Thesis Statement For Assisted Suicide Essay

Name: Yesica Arce Mendez I. Introduction A. Current Problem: In many societies, many believe assisted suicide should be legal. B. Population/Area of Focus: Community/Society and family or people personally going through this process. C. Key Terms: Euthanasia, Physician Assisted, Voluntary, Suicide Thesis Statement: Although people may be suffering and on the verge of death , assisted suicide should be illegal because there are many options to look upon then just looking at death. II. Major Point 1: Health may improve A. Minor Point 1: One may take medication to improve health and help maintain their health at a decent balance. B. Minor Point 2: There is also an option of pain management. Source: Heide, A. V. (2013). Handbook of Clinical Neurology: Ethical and Legal Issues in Neurology. Chapter 15 – Assisted …show more content…

Major Point 3: Unconsciousness A. Minor Point 1: Many patients can’t decide for themselves and it is not fair for family members to decide for them. B. Minor Point 2: It may be referred as murder, having the patient unconscious. Source: Weisstub, D. N., & Mishara, B. L. (2016). International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. Premises and Evidence in the Rhetoric of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia , 36(5-6), 427-435. V. Major Point 4: Doctor may take control A. Minor Point 1: Doctors may try to prevent from helping patient. B. Minor Point 2: Doctors are forced and have an obligation to relieve patients which means many doctors can be wrong about the information they collected. Source: Noll, R. C., & Solomon, L. M. (2008). Gender Medicine. Physician-assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: Disproportionate Prevalence of Women among Kevorkian's Patients, 5(2), 110-114. VI. Conclusion A. Restatement of Thesis: Overall with current situations happening around the world Euthanasia and Assisted suicide has become a very controversial topic, however there are many interpretations that should be looked upon before deciding that huge decision. B. Next

Outline for Persuasive Essay on Physician Assisted Suicide

B) According to the “ Journal of Medical Ethics” it may not be that simple to assist with

Opinion 8.08 Informed Consent

Every patient has a right to decide on their own course of treatment and freely consent to that treatment. In order to make an educated decision they must be provided with the proper information to make an informed choice (Opinion 8.08 - Informed Consent, 2006). It is the physician’s legal and ethical obligation to provide this information when making their recommendation on treatment. The choices given must be in accordance with good medical practice (Opinion 8.08 - Informed Consent, 2006). The informed consent is the legal policy, either written or verbal, that gives full disclosure of all the information including potential risks that is applicable to the patient’s condition and treatment being offered (Kazmier, 2008).

Arguments Against Assisted Suicide

Assisted suicide is a significant topic that worries individuals everywhere throughout the United States. Some are against it on account of religious and other reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some conveys a negative connotation; similar to that of murder. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of

Persuasive Speech : Physician Assisted Suicide

Thesis: Physician Assisted Suicide is sometimes misunderstood due to how it is termed, but this is something that needs to be deeply evaluated and legalized in all 50 states.

The Ethical Issue Of Physician Assisted Suicide

Euthanasia is described as the intentional discontinuation, by the patient 's physician, of vital treatment that could prolong the person 's life. Assisted suicide occurs when a health care worker provides a patient with tools and/or medication that will help the patient kill him or herself, without the direct intervention of the care provider. This paper will define key terms for my argument against Physician Assisted Death, and why I believe it’s wrong, where I will provide a brief background of the situation. Next, I will provide a more a more thorough explanation of these important positions I provided. In conclusion, I would provide some ideas for taking action and possible direction for future research. I believe that the right to die is not ethical because many people feel that taking of a life is morally wrong.

Should Assisted Suicide Be Legalized?

The debate on legalizing assisted suicide is an issue across the globe. It has brought countries to contemplate on the legalities of the matter in their respective legislative branches of government. Assisted suicide is just simply a matter of assessing one's will to perform such act with the permission of the subject or the patient in such way his will be done. The debate now focuses on either the act shall be legalized or not.

Active Euthanasia And Passive Euthanasia Essay

Active euthanasia is a subject that is raising a lot of concern in today’s society on whether or not it should be legalized and under what circumstances should it be allowed. This is a very tricky subject due to its ability to be misused and abused. There are a wide variety of things that need to be considered when it comes to who should be allowed to request active euthanasia such as, is it an autonomous choice, do they have a terminal illness, is their quality of life dramatically decreased, and are they in pain and suffering. Both James Rachel and Daniel Callahan have very different opinions on active euthanasia and whether or not it should be allowed. However both authors manage to provide a substantial argument on where they stand regarding active euthanasia.

Assisted Suicide Or Voluntary Euthanasia

Assisted Suicide or Voluntary Euthanasia is when a patient with a terminal illness request to end their life by taking a lethal injection or a prescribed medication with the help of a medical professional. In the United States each state has the choice on whether or not it is illegal to perform the task of assisted suicide. Out of all fifty states there are only five with a legal method for assisted suicide. In Vermont, Washington, California and Oregon it is mandated by state law and In Montana it is by court order (CNN). Assisted suicide is legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg and

Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Essay

     Assisted suicide is one of the most controversial topics discussed among people every day. Everyone has his or her own opinion on this topic. This is a socially debated topic that above all else involves someone making a choice, whether it be to continue with life or give up hope and die. This should be a choice that they make themselves. However, In the United States, The land of the free, only one state has legalized assisted suicide. I am for assisted suicide and euthanasia. This paper will support my many feelings on this subject.

Argumentative Essay On Assisted Suicide

Assisted suicide should not be legal. “ Where assisted suicide is legal in the United States, it is still not allowed for people who lack decision-making capacities. This restriction may be a matter of political tactics, rather than of bedrock principle (Smith, 2017).” Allowing this would be a mistake if people would let this happen. Allowing it can bring up many different feelings in

Suffering and Voluntary Euthanasia Essay

The controversial issue of Euthanasia or assisted suicide has been widely argued over many years and present. Euthanasia literally means dying without suffering. Recently, a law of euthanasia has been legalized and made in the state of Oregon. There are people who agree the law of euthanasia, even though there are also people who strongly oppose it. The following articles examine questions and answers about issues on euthanasia or assisted suicide. The articles are “In Defense of Voluntary Euthanasia” by Sidney Hook, “Promoting a Culture of Abandonment” by Teresa R. Wagner, “The Right to Choose Death” by Kenneth Swift, and “Death and the Law: Why the Government Has an Interest in Preserving Life” by Lawrence Rudden and Gerard V. Bradley.

Deprivation Vs Suicide

Decisions of the two primary protagonists, the doctor and the patient, have an impact on those directly involved. Families of the patients are extremely on edge, and fighting for the survival of their loved ones. While operating perceived notions of what's best for the patient, they may sometimes make rash decisions. Similarly, they in turn express concern over patient choices made during vulnerable times. This leads them to believe that only they know what is best for their loved ones. It is both their obligation and their responsibility to find the balance and aid in decision-making without injecting personal wants and opinion. Another party that seeks control and is impacted is the state legislators. Seeking to appease the masses, they must find the balance between societal responsibility, obligations, and wining favor. Legislators are responsible for setting the

Euthanasia Often Surfaces In Mainstream News As Being A

Euthanasia often surfaces in mainstream news as being a highly controversial issue, with strong arguments for both positions. To be clear, euthanasia can be defined as the following, “Intentionally taking the life of a presumably hopeless person” (Gay-Williams, 781). There are also several other distinctions that classify euthanasia as either active or passive, based on the level of action involved, or as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary, based on the level of consent (Dittmer). However, in this paper, when I use the term euthanasia, I am speaking of euthanasia in any of its forms. Thus, I will argue that all forms of euthanasia are morally impermissible. Lastly, I will assess an objection to my argument, but in the end show that

Questionable Popularity Of Euthanasia And Assisted Suicide

Those who oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide are also less willing to increase the dose of morphine for a patient who has unremitting pain despite previous pain relief efforts. "This reticence," they note, "probably reflects fear that increasing opioid dose increases the risks for respiratory depression and death and might be construed as a form of euthanasia. This view may be encouraged by proponents of euthanasia who have argued that there is no difference between increasing morphine for pain relief and euthanasia." The authors urge increased efforts "to educate physicians on the ethical and legal acceptability of increasing narcotics for pain control, even at the risk of respiratory depression and

Persuasive Essay On Assisted Suicide

Terminally ill patients may prefer to end their lives before they lose their autonomy to make decisions due to a worsening state from their conditions. It is worth mentioning that patients are allowed at

Related Topics

• Medical ethics

DSpace JSPUI

Dspace preserves and enables easy and open access to all types of digital content including text, images, moving images, mpegs and data sets.

• Newcastle University eTheses
• Newcastle University
• Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
• Newcastle Law School

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

• Help & FAQ

Physician-assisted suicide and public virtue: A reply to the liberty thesis of "the Philosophers' Brief"

• Roy and Diana Vagelos Division of Biology & Biomedical Sciences (DBBS)
• Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences (ICTS)
• COVID-19 Researchers
• Division of General Medical Sciences
• Institute for Public Health

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

The "Philosophers' Brief," penned by six of today's most influential philosophers, was submitted as an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court as it prepared to consider the cases of Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill. It set precedent as the first such brief submitted by a group representing itself solely as moral philosophers. The brief became an overnight gold standard statement of the liberal philosophical understanding of the relationship of the State to so-called 'private morality.' The main thesis of the brief is that physician-assisted suicide regards the deeply personal event of death, and that individuals have a constitutionally guaranteed right to make decisions for themselves about the intimate details of their lives. In this article, James DuBois calls this the 'liberty thesis,' and he argues that the briefs application of this principle is both contradictory and impracticable. The contradiction arises as the brief proposes restrictions on the right to physician-assisted suicide - restrictions that require the State to abandon neutrality on intimate value judgments about life's worth. The impracticability arises insofar as the brief fails to leave room for a compelling State interest in promoting a minimal level of public virtue. Ironically, one of the strongest arguments that can be proffered on behalf of a State interest in preserving a minimal level of public virtue stems from its role in safeguarding human liberty.

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus

Fingerprint

• Assisted Suicide Medicine & Life Sciences 100%
• Jurisprudence Medicine & Life Sciences 78%
• Morals Medicine & Life Sciences 47%

T1 - Physician-assisted suicide and public virtue

T2 - A reply to the liberty thesis of "the Philosophers' Brief"

AU - DuBois, James M.

PY - 1999/9

Y1 - 1999/9

N2 - The "Philosophers' Brief," penned by six of today's most influential philosophers, was submitted as an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court as it prepared to consider the cases of Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill. It set precedent as the first such brief submitted by a group representing itself solely as moral philosophers. The brief became an overnight gold standard statement of the liberal philosophical understanding of the relationship of the State to so-called 'private morality.' The main thesis of the brief is that physician-assisted suicide regards the deeply personal event of death, and that individuals have a constitutionally guaranteed right to make decisions for themselves about the intimate details of their lives. In this article, James DuBois calls this the 'liberty thesis,' and he argues that the briefs application of this principle is both contradictory and impracticable. The contradiction arises as the brief proposes restrictions on the right to physician-assisted suicide - restrictions that require the State to abandon neutrality on intimate value judgments about life's worth. The impracticability arises insofar as the brief fails to leave room for a compelling State interest in promoting a minimal level of public virtue. Ironically, one of the strongest arguments that can be proffered on behalf of a State interest in preserving a minimal level of public virtue stems from its role in safeguarding human liberty.

AB - The "Philosophers' Brief," penned by six of today's most influential philosophers, was submitted as an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court as it prepared to consider the cases of Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill. It set precedent as the first such brief submitted by a group representing itself solely as moral philosophers. The brief became an overnight gold standard statement of the liberal philosophical understanding of the relationship of the State to so-called 'private morality.' The main thesis of the brief is that physician-assisted suicide regards the deeply personal event of death, and that individuals have a constitutionally guaranteed right to make decisions for themselves about the intimate details of their lives. In this article, James DuBois calls this the 'liberty thesis,' and he argues that the briefs application of this principle is both contradictory and impracticable. The contradiction arises as the brief proposes restrictions on the right to physician-assisted suicide - restrictions that require the State to abandon neutrality on intimate value judgments about life's worth. The impracticability arises insofar as the brief fails to leave room for a compelling State interest in promoting a minimal level of public virtue. Ironically, one of the strongest arguments that can be proffered on behalf of a State interest in preserving a minimal level of public virtue stems from its role in safeguarding human liberty.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033183589&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10597662

AN - SCOPUS:0033183589

SN - 8756-8160

JO - Issues in Law and Medicine

JF - Issues in Law and Medicine

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
• BMC Med Ethics

US medical and surgical society position statements on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: a review

Joseph g. barsness.

3 Hamline University, St. Paul, MN USA

Casey R. Regnier

4 Augsburg University, Minneapolis, MN USA

C. Christopher Hook

1 Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN USA

Paul S. Mueller

2 Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic Health System–Franciscan Healthcare in La Crosse, 800 West Ave S, La Crosse, WI 54601 USA

Associated Data

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

An analysis of the position statements of secular US medical and surgical professional societies on physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia have not been published recently. Available statements were evaluated for position, content, and sentiment.

In order to create a comprehensive list of secular medical and surgical societies, the results of a systematic search using Google were cross-referenced with a list of societies that have a seat on the American Medical Association House of Delegates. Societies with position statements were identified. These statements were divided into 5 categories: opposed to PAS and/or euthanasia, studied neutrality, supportive, acknowledgement without statement, and no statement. Linguistic analysis was performed using RapidMinder in order to determine word frequency and sentiment respective to individual statements. To ensure accuracy, only statements with word counts > 100 were analyzed. A 2-tailed independent t test was used to test for variance among sentiment scores of opposing and studied neutrality statements.

Of 150 societies, only 12 (8%) have position statements on PAS and euthanasia: 11 for PAS (5 opposing and 4 studied neutrality) and 9 for euthanasia (6 opposing and 2 studied neutrality). Although the most popular words used in opposing and studied neutrality statements are similar, notable exceptions exist ( suicide , medicine , and treatment appear frequently in opposing statements, but not in studied neutrality statements, whereas psychologists , law , and individuals appear frequently in studied neutrality statements, but not in opposing statements). Sentiment scores for opposing and studied neutrality statements do not differ (mean, 0.094 vs. 0.104; P  = 0.90).

Conclusions

Few US medical and surgical societies have position statements on PAS and euthanasia. Among them, opposing and studied neutrality statements share similar linguistic sentiment. Opposing and studied neutrality statements have clear differences, but share recommendations. Both opposing and studied neutrality statements cite potential risks of PAS legalization and suggest that good palliative care might diminish a patient’s desire for PAS.

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia are highly debated and controversial topics in the United States. In PAS, a patient ingests a drug prescribed by a physician for the purpose of causing the patient’s death, in order to relieve unacceptable symptoms or quality of life. Currently, California [ 1 ], Colorado [ 2 ], Hawaii [ 3 ], Maine [ 4 ], Oregon [ 5 ], Vermont [ 6 ], Washington [ 7 ], and the District of Columbia [ 8 ] have legalized PAS. (The Montana Supreme Court ruled that PAS does not conflict with Montana public policy [ 9 ]) The other US states prohibit PAS and punish it by law [ 10 ]. In euthanasia, a physician (or someone else) administers a lethal drug. Euthanasia is illegal throughout the United States [ 10 ].

Laws concerning PAS, also known as physician-assisted death (PAD), are generally more rigid in the United States than in countries where PAD is legal. For instance, in the Netherlands, PAS and euthanasia are legal for adults (or for persons age 12 through 17 years with parental involvement). Requests for PAD “often come from patients experiencing unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement. Their request must be made earnestly and with full conviction… However, patients have no absolute right to euthanasia and doctors no absolute duty to perform it” [ 11 ]. Currently, no US state allows PAS for persons younger than 18 years, and PAS is illegal in the absence of a severe physical ailment that will result in natural death within 6 months [ 1 – 3 , 5 – 8 ]. The ethical permissibility of PAS and euthanasia, along with considerations regarding what constitutes patient autonomy in decision-making associated with the dying process, creates an emotionally provocative and divisive debate. The position statements of medical and surgical professional societies concerning PAS and euthanasia may reflect complexities.

The statements of professional societies guide clinicians on various topics, such as disease prevention and management. For PAS and euthanasia, such statements inform, provide multiple (sometimes opposing) perspectives, and advocate for specific positions. Because PAS and euthanasia involve physician action, physicians understandably may turn to their professional societies for guidance on these topics. A comprehensive analysis of such statements issued by secular US medical and surgical professional societies has not been published recently. Therefore, in this cross-sectional study, we determined the number of secular US societies that have position statements about PAS and euthanasia and the positions they have taken. We also analyzed the contents and conducted a linguistic analysis of the statements.

We developed a comprehensive list of secular US medical and surgical professional societies with use of 2 methods. To do so, we first conducted a systematic Google search using the phrase “American […] medical societies,” with the bracket including a name of a specialty derived from the Mayo Clinic directory. An original search was performed for each specialty in the directory, and the respective first 2 Google search pages were analyzed for societies. Second, we obtained a list of specialty societies from the American Medical Association (AMA) website [ 12 ]. This list reflects organizations entitled to a seat in the AMA House of Delegates. It served to provide a cross-reference for our Google search results. In a combination of these 2 methods, a comprehensive list was created of the US specialty-based medical and surgical professional societies.

We determined the positions of these societies on PAS or euthanasia, or both. These positions were organized into 5 categories: supportive, opposed, studied neutrality, acknowledgement without statement, and no statement. Studied neutrality position statements are characterized by an understanding of the practical concerns associated with PAS or euthanasia and the persistent desire of some patients for PAS or euthanasia despite these concerns. The American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM) position statement [ 13 ] exemplifies a studied neutrality statement. To determine whether a society had publicly issued a position statement on PAS or euthanasia, or both, the society’s official website was consulted. If no such statement was available on the website, an email was sent to a society contact listed on the website. If the society website did not provide a statement and no official position statement was publicly available, the society was categorized as having no statement.

For each available position statement, linguistic analysis was performed using a data science software platform (RapidMiner; RapidMiner) [ 14 ]. From each statement, so-called stop words (such as is , a , or the ) and the name of the society were filtered out because these words provided no insights into the intent of the statement authors. The other words were sorted by frequency of use, producing a chart of each statement’s top word choices. In addition, a given statement’s words that were used more than once were processed by a sentiment analysis tool (Twinword; Twinword Inc). This approach relates word choice to emotional attitude and generates a quantitative score of emotional positivity. Medhat et al. [ 15 ] provided a comprehensive survey of sentiment analysis approaches, including a description of the dictionary-based approach used in the present study. To ensure the tool’s generated score was reflective of the statement, we analyzed only the statements with more than 100 words. A mean score was generated for opposing statements and studied neutrality statements. Sentiment scores were compared among the opposing and studied neutrality statements with a 2-tailed independent t test.

Our search methodology identified a total of 150 distinct secular US medical and surgical professional societies (Additional file 1 : Table S1). Of these, only 12 (8%) had position statements regarding PAS or euthanasia, or both (Table ​ (Table1). 1 ). Eleven societies (7%) had statements on PAS. Of these, 5 (45%) had positions opposing PAS; 4 (36%), positions of studied neutrality; and 2 (18%), acknowledgment of PAS without a position. No society had a statement overtly in support of PAS. Regarding euthanasia, 9 societies (6%) had position statements: 6 (67%), positions opposing euthanasia; 2 (22%), positions of studied neutrality; and 1 (11%), acknowledgement of euthanasia without a position. No society had a statement overtly supporting euthanasia. Three societies have had their position statements published in peer-reviewed journals (American Academy of Neurology [AAN] [ 16 ], American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [ 17 ], and American College of Physicians [ACP] [ 19 ]).

Positions on PAS and Euthanasia of US medical and surgical specialty societies with position statements

PAS physician-assisted suicide

The most popular words used in opposing position statements and studied neutrality statements are shown in Figs.  1 and ​ and2. 2 . Suicide , medicine , and treatment appear frequently in opposing statements but not in studied neutrality statements. By comparison, psychologists , law , and individuals appear frequently in studied neutrality statements but not in opposing statements. Otherwise, the words used in these 2 statement types are similar. In linguistic analysis, the mean sentiment score was 0.094 for opposing statements and 0.104 for studied neutrality statements, a nonsignificant difference ( P  = 0.90). Of note, Twinword categorizes any sentiment score below − 0.05 as negative and any score above 0.05 as positive [ 28 ]. Thus, given the mean scores in this study, the opposing and studied neutrality statements both used emotionally positive language.

Most popular words in opposing position statements among 150 US medical and surgical professional societies

Most popular words in studied neutrality position statements among 150 US medical and surgical professional societies

From a content standpoint, the opposing statements generally argue that PAS is problematic in practice and in society. The statements of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-term Care Medicine (AMDA), ACP, AMA, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) assert that PAS contradicts the healing role of the physician [ 19 , 20 , 25 , 27 ]. To counter the claim that PAS is a legitimate approach to symptom control in extreme cases, the statements of AMDA, ACP, and the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO) highlight the legal permissibility of palliative sedation. Finally, ACP and NHPCO mention that the US Supreme Court has ruled that no legal right to PAS exists. Studied neutrality statements provide supportive and cautionary arguments concerning PAS. The statements of AAHPM, AAN, and the American Pharmacists Association acknowledge the complexities of the physician–patient relationship [ 13 , 16 , 22 ], and American Psychological Association (APA) acknowledges the social complexities of the medical environment [ 24 ]. Each of these statements emphasizes patient autonomy in decision-making associated with the dying process.

The studied neutrality statements generally support further study of palliative care techniques or physician ethics training, or a combination. Opposing statements (ACP [ 19 ] and AMA [ 20 ]) and studied neutrality statements (AAHPM [ 13 ] and AAN [ 16 ]) warn of potential long-term societal risks associated with a legalization of PAS (e.g., slippery slope ). Opposing statements (AMDA [ 27 ], ACP [ 19 ], and NHPCO [ 26 ]) and 1 studied neutrality statement (APA [ 24 ]) suggest that effective palliative care can diminish a patient’s desire for PAS.

This study has several key findings. First, of 150 secular US medical and surgical professional societies, only 12 (8%) have position statements on PAS and euthanasia: 11 for PAS (5 opposing and 4 studied neutrality) and 9 for euthanasia (6 opposing and 2 studied neutrality). Only 3 of these statements have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Second, opposing and studied neutrality statements use similar linguistic sentiment. Third, although opposing and studied neutrality statements have clear differences, they also share recommendations.

It is unclear why so few US societies have position statements on PAS and euthanasia. A given society’s lack of a statement regarding these topics may be due to numerous factors. For example, large and influential societies such as AMA and ACP have position statements on PAS and euthanasia, potentially inhibiting smaller societies from taking positions or causing the smaller societies to perceive their taking a position as unnecessary or irrelevant. Indeed, in personal communications with representatives of societies that do not have position statements, some representatives directed us to the AMA website (J. Barsness, written communication, June 2018). Society specialty may be another factor. For example, in an email from a specialized surgical society, the contact cited the highly specialized field of its members as a reason for not having a position statement (J. Barsness, written communication, June 2018). These phenomena, along with the controversy surrounding the topics, may discourage a society from creating a position statement about PAS or euthanasia (or both).

No position statement argued in favor of PAS or euthanasia. In consideration of a general desire to avoid controversy, a position of studied neutrality may be perceived by a professional society as the only feasible alternative to an opposing position. The decisions of several societies to acknowledge PAS or euthanasia without taking a position appear similar in intent. Either ethical uncertainty exists in the field or the societies believe the need exists to suppress potentially controversial statements.

Among available position statements, linguistic trends are apparent. Societies with studied neutrality positions emphasize patient autonomy regarding end-of-life decision-making but also respect the physician’s role as a health care provider and recognize the benefit of palliative care [ 16 , 24 ]. The AAN, which takes a studied neutral position, reasons that,

“The Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee endorses the belief that the primary role of a physician is to prevent and treat disease whenever possible. At the same time, the committee strongly endorses the provision of palliative care to alleviate suffering in patients with illnesses that are unresponsive to disease-specific treatments” [ 16 ].

Studied neutrality statements typically call for rigorous ethical training and further study of palliative care and PAS. This call leaves open the possibility of further analysis [ 17 ]. The APA, taking a studied neutrality position, reasons, “[We] encourage psychologists to obtain training in ethics (e.g., medical ethics, professional codes of conduct) in the context of diversity, as applied to palliative and end-of-life decisions and care” [ 24 ].

Societies with opposing statements view PAS as contrary to the physician’s role in the general US society, do not view death as a right, and view that patient autonomy is an insufficient reason for legalization of PAS. The statements of the AMDA, ACP, AMA, and ASA posit that PAS contradicts the role of a physician [ 19 , 20 , 25 , 27 ]. The ACP position statement provides illustrative reasoning: “Physician-assisted suicide requires physicians to breach specific prohibitions as well as the general duties of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Such breaches are viewed as inconsistent with the physician’s role as healer and comforter” [ 19 ]. Unsurprisingly, the opposing statements do not mention further study of PAS. Statements that oppose euthanasia follow similar reasoning.

Some opposing statements (of AMDA, ACP, and NHPCO) reference the permissibility of palliative sedation to counter the claim that PAS is a legitimate symptom management approach in the case of extreme discomfort [ 19 , 26 , 27 ]. In such cases, patients should receive aggressive palliation. AMDA reasons, “AMDA supports aggressive treatment toward relieving the pain, anxiety, depression, emotional isolation, and other physical symptoms that can accompany the dying process even if the unintended result of such treatment may hasten the patient’s death” [ 27 ]. The ACP and NHPCO statements also highlight the US Supreme Court’s prior ruling that there is no right to die (or PAS) in the United States [ 19 , 26 ].

Of note, studied neutrality statements (AAHPM and AAN) [ 13 , 16 ] and opposing statements (ACP and AMA) [ 19 , 20 ] warn of a slippery slope of long-term risks that PAS legalization may incur. The ACP opposing statement says, “Although the ACP’s fundamental concerns are based on ethical principles, research suggests that a ‘slippery slope’ exists in jurisdictions where physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal” [ 19 ]. The AAHPM’s studied neutral statement says, “Such a change risks unintended long-range consequences that may not yet be discernible, including effects on the relationship between medicine and society” [ 13 ]. Such long-range consequences include broadened use of PAS for nonterminal conditions and use of PAS in favor of palliative care. Additionally, the studied neutrality and opposing statements suggest that effective palliative care can diminish a patient’s desire for PAD [ 19 , 24 , 27 , 29 ]. The AAN’s studied neutrality statement says,

“[The committee] expresses support for improved availability of palliative care services, palliative care education for AAN members, and palliative care research intended to identify more effective means to alleviate refractory suffering of dying patients. By doing so, it hopes to minimize future patient interest in hastened death” [ 16 ].

The language of position statements correlates with the position taken by the societies. For instance, studied neutrality statements refrain from the word suicide and instead use such terms as hastened death or assisted death [ 13 , 16 , 24 ]. This use of language is justified in the AAN statement as a means of reducing stigma associated with PAS [ 16 ]. Alternative terminology regarding PAS has been actively considered in the literature [ 30 ]. In contrast, the ACP opposing statement states a rationalization of use of the word suicide as not being derogatory and aiding in clarity in the discussion of the topic (e.g., in contrast to “physician aid in dying,” which could refer to palliative care, terminal sedation, PAS, and euthanasia) [ 19 ]. Unsurprisingly, statements that oppose PAS or euthanasia (or both) use the word suicide more frequently [ 19 – 21 , 27 , 29 ]. In contrast, studied neutrality statements use psychologists , law , and individuals more frequently than opposing statements—likely a reflection of the procedures used to request PAS and the emphasis on patient autonomy in association with PAS. That said, the most popular words used in the opposing statements and studied neutrality statements are similar.

Statements have considered the culturally and historically negative connotations of the term suicide [ 19 ]. Recognizing these connotations, we sought to explore whether the opposing statements’ preference for referring to PAS as a suicide and studied neutrality statements’ preference for alternative terms such as assisted death indicates a statement’s comprehensive use of emotionally positive or negative language. Therefore, we extended the linguistic analysis by exploring possible associations between linguistic sentiment and statement position through comparison of mean sentiment scores across position categories. Although studied neutrality statements commonly use phrases such as assisted death in place of suicide , our linguistic analysis showed similar mean sentiment scores for studied neutrality statements and opposing statements. Furthermore, both opposing and studied neutrality statements tended to use emotionally positive language.

Nonetheless, our analysis and findings provide no insight into the rhetorical decision to use the label suicide or an alternate. Rather, our findings suggest that use of suicide or an alternate term such as assisted death does not indicate that a position statement intentionally uses emotionally positive or negative language.

Limitations

A limitation of the present analysis is the small number of position statements of the organizations. Corpus-based sentiment analysis would provide a better understanding of author intent in the statements because this approach has the ability to consider phrase context more thoroughly [ 15 ]. That said, we did not use this type of analysis because the authors of these position statements were unlikely to use techniques such as sarcasm or irony. In addition, we did not include position statements from societies with religious affiliations, some of which have large memberships (e.g., Christian Medical and Dental Associations [ 31 ]). Because our study focused on position statements of US professional societies, we intentionally did not include statements from non-US–based societies. Nonetheless, given the variability of perspectives and laws on PAS and euthanasia globally, a study comparing US with non-US statements should be considered.

Only a dozen secular US medical and surgical professional societies have position statements on PAS and euthanasia, and only 3 of these statements have been published in peer-reviewed journals. The reasons for these small numbers are unclear but may be related to the controversial nature of the topics, the positions of large and influential societies, and the relevancy of the topics for specific specialty societies.

Aside from the use of the words suicide , medicine , and treatment in opposing statements and the words psychologists , law , and individuals in studied neutrality statements, the most popular words used in opposing and studied neutrality position statements are similar. Use of the word suicide or assisted death does not appear to indicate a statement’s comprehensive use of emotionally positive or negative language.

Opposing statements generally claim PAS contradicts the healing role of the physician and that alternative approaches to symptom control exist for extreme cases (e.g., palliative sedation). Studied neutrality statements highlight patient autonomy in decision-making associated with the dying process. The opposing statements and the studied neutrality statements cite potential long-term societal risks associated with legalization of PAS and suggest that effective palliative care can diminish a patient’s desire for PAS.

Supplementary information

Acknowledgements.

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

Authors’ contributions.

JB contributed to study design, the collection and analysis of position statement data, and the writing and editing of the manuscript. CR contributed to position statement data collection and made major contributions to data organization. CH made contributions to data collection and organization as well as manuscript editing. PM contributed to and oversaw study design, data collection, position statement analysis, and the writing and editing of the manuscript. All authors have read, approved, and are accountable for the final manuscript.

This study had no funding source.

Availability of data and materials

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication.

Not applicable (see cover letter).

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s12910-020-00556-5.

Patients’ and caregivers’ attitudes towards patient assisted suicide or euthanasia in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis-a meta-analysis

• Review article
• Published: 17 May 2024

Cite this article

• Ioannis Mavroudis 1 , 2 ,
• Pavlina Alexiou 3 ,
• Foivos Petridis 4 ,
• Alin Ciobica   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1750-6011 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ,
• Ioana Miruna Balmus 9 ,
• Bogdan Gireadă 10 , 11 ,
• Irina Luciana Gurzu 12 ,
• Otilia Novac 12 &
• Bogdan Novac 12  

89 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Assisted suicide and euthanasia are long debated topics in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients care. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the attitudes of ALS patients and their caregivers toward physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia. Also, we were interested to identify the factors associated with the positive or negative attitude of patients and caregivers towards PAS/euthanasia. A thorough search of the online databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) was conducted and eligibility criteria according to the PRISMA guidelines were used to include the studies in the current meta-analysis. The assessment of the quality of the selected studies was carried out using a pre-specified set of criteria by Cochrane. The studies that were selected for this meta-analysis suggested that the expression of the wish to die is more likely correlated with depression, anxiety, hopelessness, and lack of optimism. The overall prevalence of considering PAS/euthanasia significantly varies in a dependent manner over the cultural, legal, and societal factors. In this context, we found that the opinion on this topic can be deeply personal and may vary widely among individuals and communities. Lower quality of life and lower religiosity were associated with a positive attitude toward PAS/euthanasia. On the other hand, patients who are more religious are less likely to choose PAS/euthanasia. Gender does not appear to play a significant role in determining attitudes towards PAS/euthanasia in ALS patients. Other factors, such as education and psychological state, could also be important. In conclusion, end-of-life decisions in ALS patients are complex and require careful consideration of individual values, beliefs, and preferences. Understanding the factors that influence a patient's attitude towards PAS/euthanasia can help healthcare providers to offer appropriate care and support for these patients and their families.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a prospective study

Existential decision-making in a fatal progressive disease: how much do legal and medical frameworks matter, therapeutic decisions in als patients: cross-cultural differences and clinical implications.

Carmona C, Gómez P, Ferrer MA, Plamondon R, Londral A (2017) Study of several parameters for the detection of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis from articulatory movement. Loquens 4(1):038. https://doi.org/10.3989/loquens.2017.038

Article   Google Scholar  

Hogden A, Foley G, Henderson RD, James N, Aoun SM (2017) Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: improving care with a multidisciplinary approach. J Multidiscip Healthc 10:205–215. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S134992

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Oliver DJ, Turner MR (2010) Some difficult decisions in ALS/MND. Amyotroph Lateral Scler 11(4):339–343. https://doi.org/10.3109/17482968.2010.487532

Khin E, Minor D, Holloway A, Pelleg A (2015) Decisional capacity in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Am Acad Psychiatr Law 43(2):210–217

Google Scholar  

Sprung CL, Somerville MA, Radbruch L et al (2018) Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: emerging issues from a global perspective. J Palliat Care 33(4):197–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0825859718777325

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928

Rabkin JG, Goetz R, Factor-Litvak P et al (2015) Depression and wish to die in a multicenter cohort of ALS patients. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener 16(3–4):265–273. https://doi.org/10.3109/21678421.2014.980428

Maessen M, Veldink JH, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD et al (2014) Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a prospective study. J Neurol 261(10):1894–1901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-014-7424-6

Stutzki R, Weber M, Reiter-Theil S, Simmen U, Borasio GD, Jox RJ (2014) Attitudes towards hastened death in ALS: a prospective study of patients and family caregivers. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener 15(1–2):68–76. https://doi.org/10.3109/21678421.2013.837928

Albert SM, Rabkin JG, Del Bene ML, Tider T, O’Sullivan I, Rowland LP, Mitsumoto H (2005) Wish to die in end-stage ALS. Neurology 65(1):68–74. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000168161.54833.bb

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Veldink JH, Wokke JH, van der Wal G, Vianney de Jong JM, van den Berg LH (2002) Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide among patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in the Netherlands. N Engl J Med 346(21):1638–1644. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa012739

Ganzini L, Silveira MJ, Johnston WS (2002) Predictors and correlates of interest in assisted suicide in the final month of life among ALS patients in Oregon and Washington. J Pain Symptom Manage 24(3):312–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0885-3924(02)00496-7

Maessen M, Veldink JH, van den Berg LH, Schouten HJ, van der Wal G, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD (2010) Requests for euthanasia: origin of suffering in ALS, heart failure, and cancer patients. J Neurol 257(7):1192–1198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-010-5474-y

Maessen M, Veldink JH, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, de Vries JM, Wokke JH, van der Wal G, van den Berg LH (2009) Trends and determinants of end-of-life practices in ALS in the Netherlands. Neurology 73(12):954–961. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181b87983

Achille MA, Ogloff JR (2003) Attitudes toward and desire for assisted suicide among persons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Omega (Westport) 48(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.2190/g5ta-9kv0-mt3g-rwm0

Kühnlein P, Kübler A, Raubold S, Worrell M, Kurt A, Gdynia HJ, Sperfeld AD, Ludolph AC (2008) Palliative care and circumstances of dying in German ALS patients using non-invasive ventilation. Amyotroph Lateral Scler 9(2):91–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482960701830495

Thurn T, Borasio GD, Chiò A, Galvin M, McDermott CJ, Mora G, Sermeus W, Winkler AS, Anneser J (2019) Physicians’ attitudes toward end-of-life decisions in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener 20(1–2):74–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/21678421.2018.1536154

Mroz S, Deliens L, Cohen J, Chambaere K (2022) developments under assisted dying legislation: the experience in Belgium and other countries. Dtsch Arztebl Int 119(48):829–835. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0378

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bentley B, O’Connor M (2016) The end-of-life experiences of people with motor neuron disease: family carers’ perspectives. J Palliat Med 19(8):857–862. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2015.0538

Danel-Brunaud V, Touzet L, Chevalier L, Moreau C, Devos D, Vandoolaeghe S, Defebvre L (2017) Ethical considerations and palliative care in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a review. Rev Neurologique 173(5):300–307

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Magelssen M, Holmøy T, Horn MA, Fondenæs OA, Dybwik K, Førde R (2018) Ethical challenges in tracheostomy-assisted ventilation in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Neurol 265(11):2730–2736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-018-9054-x

Rivara M, Barlascini C, Banfi P, Nicolini A, Grecchi B (2016) Management of the patient with advanced amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: the caregiver’s opinion. Romanian J Neurol 15(1):24–29

Ang K, Lim MY, Srinivasan S (2019) Ethical and legal issues of tracheostomy ventilation in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Proc Singapore Healthcare 28(3):193–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/2010105819828753

Testoni I, Di Lucia SD, De Cataldo L, Ronconi L (2014) Life at all costs? Italian social representations of end-of-life decisions after President Napolitano’s speech—margin notes on withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration. Nutritional Ther Metab 32(3):121–135. https://doi.org/10.5301/NTM.2014.12488

Download references

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. No funds, grants, or other support were received.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Neuroscience, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, UK

Ioannis Mavroudis

Leeds University, Leeds, UK

School of Theology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

Pavlina Alexiou

Third Department of Neurology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

Foivos Petridis

Department of Biology, Faculty of Biology, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Carol I Avenue, No. 20A, 700506, Iasi, Romania

Alin Ciobica

Centre of Biomedical Research, Romanian Academy, Iasi Branch, Teodor Codrescu 2, 700481 , Iasi, Romania

Academy of Romanian Scientists, 3 Ilfov, 050044, Bucharest, Romania

″Ioan Haulica″ Institute, Apollonia University, Păcurari Street 11, 700511, Iasi, Romania

Department of Exact Sciences and Natural Sciences, Institute of Interdisciplinary Research, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Alexandru Lapusneanu Street, No. 26, 700057, Iasi, Romania

Ioana Miruna Balmus

Department of Medicine III, Faculty of Medicine, Grigore T. Popa University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Iasi, 16 Universitătii Street, 700115, Iasi, Romania

Bogdan Gireadă

Institute of Psychiatry “Socola”, 36 Bucium Street, 700282, Iasi, Romania

Faculty of Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T. Popa”, 16 Universitătii Street, 700115, Iasi, Romania

Irina Luciana Gurzu, Otilia Novac & Bogdan Novac

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Alin Ciobica or Irina Luciana Gurzu .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Mavroudis, I., Alexiou, P., Petridis, F. et al. Patients’ and caregivers’ attitudes towards patient assisted suicide or euthanasia in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis-a meta-analysis. Acta Neurol Belg (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13760-024-02578-x

Download citation

Received : 02 January 2024

Accepted : 10 May 2024

Published : 17 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13760-024-02578-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
• Assisted suicide
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Will NY approve medically assisted suicide? What doctors, disability advocates say

A decade-long push to allow medically assisted suicide in New York has taken a spot on the list of state bills vying for approval in Albany before the legislative session ends in early June.

The medical aid in dying act — the latest in a series of physician-assisted suicide bills proposed since 2015 — has gained momentum in recent weeks after a top physician trade group in New York in April announced its support for the measure, reversing course on its prior opposition.

But remaining opponents of the legislation, including the New York State Catholic Conference and a key disability rights group, have continued to lobby against the bill, citing in part concerns that it devalued human life and reinforced negative perceptions about being disabled.

NY doctors group supports medical aid in dying. Why?

The Medical Society of the State of New York, which represents thousands of doctors statewide, passed a resolution last month throwing its support behind the medically assisted suicide bill.

The group's stance came with the caveat that "the physician always retains the choice to opt in or to decline to participate in the defined process."

The physician group "is a multicultural society, and this reversal of our previous policy respects different cultural approaches to this sensitive topic and empowers patient autonomy,” President Jerome Cohen said in a statement about the resolution.

The support "reflects no coercion of patients or physicians, but rather allows the physician to make their own choice to participate or not,” he added.

Assisted suicide: Crossing state lines for assisted suicide: Vermont law opens doors to nonresidents

What lawmaker says about doctor support

State Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, D-Manhattan, described the turnaround as a key development for the bill he championed, noting the state Academy of Family Physicians previously backed the measure.

"Clearly, a majority of doctors support medical aid in dying, and many palliative and hospice doctors want the ability to have this option for their patients who want it," he said in a statement, noting recent polls showed about 70% of New Yorkers supported the bill.

Disability group: Medically assisted suicide devalues New Yorker's lives

The New York Association on Independent Living, a nonprofit advocacy group, asserted medically assisted suicide bill reinforced the negative perception that the lives of New Yorkers living with disabilities "are not worth living."

"Fears of becoming disabled and facing functional loss, whether the cause is injury or illness, are often reported by doctors as reasons patients request assisted suicide," the group said in a legislative memo opposing the bill.

The opposition extended to the negative belief "that requiring the assistance of another individual for activities of daily living, such as dressing, bathing and toileting, is undignified or a legitimate reason to legalize physician assisted suicide."

The group noted those who contemplate suicide typically suffer from clinical depression or other treatable emotional or mental issues, which frequently go undiagnosed. The proposed bill only provides for an optional referral to a “mental health professional” charged with determining “whether the patient has capacity to make an informed decision,” the statement added.

Deep concerns about coercion and abuse, the group added, stemmed from the proposed legislation being based on the laws in Washington and Oregon, which have proven to have ineffectual safeguards against abuse. New York's bill "does not prevent a coercive family member or caregiver from doctor shopping with the individual to find a physician who will provide the fatal drug," the group added.

Religious group: NY should be trying to prevent suicide, not aid it

The state Catholic Conference voiced similar concerns about the bill's lack of consideration and safeguards related to mental health issues, while also detailing alternative approaches to the issue.

"Rather than assisting suicide, we believe government should be consistent in its efforts to prevent suicide," the group said in its legislative memo.

"It is illogical for the state to promote/facilitate suicide for one group of persons...with a terminal illness," the group added, "while recognizing suicide as a serious statewide public health crisis in all other circumstances and spending enormous resources to combat it."

The group urged state lawmakers and officials "to remove barriers and improve access to palliative care and hospice care for those in the final stages of terminal illness."

"Improved education and training of physicians in pain management, together with appropriate diagnosis and treatment for depression, would go a long way toward eliminating calls for suicide among the sick and the dying," the memo added.