ABSTRACT
With the increasing acceptance of the right of patients to refuse life-sustaining
treatment, some have argued that terminally ill patients have a corollary right to
physician-assisted suicide (PAS) on request. However, there are important moral and
legal distinctions between patients' refusals of therapy and requests for certain
actions. Physicians must stop life-sustaining therapy when that therapy has been validly
refused by patients. But physicians have no similar duty to provide actions, such
as assistance in suicide, simply because they have been requested by patients. In
deciding how to respond to patients' requests, physicians should use their judgment
about the medical appropriateness of the request. The morality of PAS is debatable
but it remains illegal in most jurisdictions. Advocates of legalizing PAS should fully
understand three issues: (1) that such legalization would have a negative effect on
the practice of palliative care and on the physician-patient relationship; (2) that
legalization of voluntary euthanasia will follow the legalization of PAS; and (3)
that involuntary euthanasia inevitably follows the legalization of voluntary euthanasia,
as has occurred in the Netherlands over the past 12 years. Rather than suffer the
harms resulting from legalizing PAS, our society should maintain its illegality and
make an expanded effort to improve physicians' training and abilities to provide palliative
care.
Keywords
physician-assisted suicide - euthanasia - palliative care - terminally ill patients
- life-sustaining treatment - dying