Non-Faith-Based Arguments against Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia

Abstract

This article is a complement to “A Template for Non-Religious-Based Discussions Against Euthanasia” by Melissa Harintho, Nathaniel Bloodworth, and E. Wesley Ely which appeared in the February 2015 Linacre Quarterly. Herein we build upon Daniel Sulmasy's opening and closing arguments from the 2014 Intelligence Squared debate on legalizing assisted suicide, supplemented by other non-faith-based arguments and thoughts, providing four nontheistic arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: (1) “it offends me”; (2) slippery slope; (3) “pain can be alleviated”; (4) physician integrity and patient trust. Lay Summary: Presented here are four non-religious, reasonable arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: (1) “it offends me,” suicide devalues human life; (2) slippery slope, the limits on euthanasia gradually erode; (3) “pain can be alleviated,” palliative care and modern therapeutics more and more adequately manage pain; (4) physician integrity and patient trust, participating in suicide violates the integrity of the physician and undermines the trust patients place in physicians to heal and not to harm.

Attitudes And Opinions Towards Suicidality In Professionals Working With Oncology Patients: Results From An Online Survey

“…31 A debate on the topic from a secular point of view produced four arguments against PAS: It devalues life, it constitutes "slippery slope" (limits of PAS are gradually being eroded), modern palliative medicine can manage pain, and it is undermining the physicians' integrity and violates patient trust. 33 Concerning religious a liation of HCPs we found slightly negative correlations between religious a liation and understanding of suicide and seeking help from an ASO. Nurses without religion had more positive attitudes towards suicidal behavior than those with a religion.…”

Ethics in physician-assisted dying and euthanasia

“…Finally, opponents believe that physician-assisted dying somehow violates physician integrity and patient trust. 10 These arguments suggest that physicians cannot assume that precipitating death and presumably "limiting suffering" are congruent with a patient's value system. To "aid" patients who are suffering and perhaps not thinking clearly may actually violate their beliefs.…”

A eutanásia e seus argumentos

“…A legalização da eutanásia, em vez de promover a autonomia dos pacientes face ao poder dos médicos, acaba por conceder ainda mais poder aos profissionais, pois são eles quem decide se a pessoa cumpre ou não os critérios para ter acesso a uma morte antecipada (cf. Sulmasy et al, 2016).…”

“…É o que já se verifica em países onde a eutanásia é legal, onde muitos pacientes têm medo de ser mortos sem o seu consentimento, ao abrigo das leis da eutanásia, quando necessitam de recorrer aos serviços de saúde. Na Holanda, muitos idosos transportam consigo cartões mencionando explicitamente que não pretendem a eutanásia (Sulmasy et al, 2016).…”

“…70-71), há inúmeros argumentos contra a eutanásia e o suicídio assistido de cariz laico ou secular (cf. Sulmasy, 2016).…”