# data[].attributes.body
https://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T004&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&hitCount=25588&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=19&docId=GALE%7CA679609291&docType=Article&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=ZXAM-MOD1&prodId=GPS&pageNum=1&contentSet=GALE%7CA679609291&searchId=R1&userGroupName=clov45023&inPS=true

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gale offers a variety of resources for education, lifelong learning, and academic research. Whether you are looking for peer-reviewed articles; full-text magazines, newspapers, and eBooks; primary source documents; and videos or podcasts, Gale puts the right vetted content and tools at your fingertips! Don't know how to login?

# data[].attributes.body
https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-021-00652-0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trends in Swedish physicians’ attitudes towards physician-assisted suicide: a cross-sectional study - BMC Medical Ethics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Aims To examine attitudes towards physician-assisted suicide (PAS) among physicians in Sweden and compare these with the results from a similar cross-sectional study performed in 2007. Participants A random selection of 250 physicians from each of six specialties (general practice, geriatrics, inter…

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.mnmed.org/getattachment/about-us/committees-task-forces/Physician-Aid-in-Dying-June-2016/Attitudes-and-Practices-on-PAID-JAMA.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nursingworld.org/~4a645b/globalassets/docs/ana/ethics/physician-assisted-suicide.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/vistas/article_53.pdf?sfvrsn=5677d2c_10

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334594823_Ethics_in_physician-assisted_dying_and_euthanasia

# data[].attributes.body
Physician-assisted suicide: Compassionate Liberation or Murder?
- Approximately 1 of 1,000 dying Oregonians obtain and use a lethal dose of medication; 17% personally considered it as an option (Tolle et al., 2004)

# data[].attributes.body
Physician-assisted suicide: Compassionate Liberation or Murder?

NONE

# data[].attributes.body
Physician-assisted suicide: Compassionate Liberation or Murder?
- Today US supports autonomy and self-determination more
- Legalization of PAS made great improvements in palliative care
- PAS is legal in Oregon, Washington, Montana (This is 2010 and others have joined since see source one)

# data[].attributes.body
Physician-assisted suicide: Compassionate Liberation or Murder?
- June 1997, US supreme court decided patients have no right to die

# data[].attributes.body
Physician-assisted suicide: Compassionate Liberation or Murder?
- Even though Supreme Court said no right to die, there is nothing saying laws couldn't be passed for those rights
- Oregon legalized PAS in 1997

# data[].attributes.body
Physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, and counseling ethics

NONE

# data[].attributes.body
Physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, and counseling ethics
- "Apart from the death penalty in some states, active euthanasia is illegal in all fifty states (Lo, 2009)."
- "With PAS, a physician provides the means for death with the patient bringing about the act itself."
- "The pro-PAS side stresses autonomy while the opposition demands that the sanctity of life be recognized"

# data[].attributes.body
Physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, and counseling ethics
- Three kinds of euthanasia, active voluntary euthanasia, involuntary active euthanasia, non-voluntary euthanasia.
- Unlike death penalty, active euthanasia is illegal in all states.
- PAS is different to euthanasia because the patients is they're own demise
- Autonomy vs non- maleficence and beneficence
- Indirect cases of physicians speeding up the death process for patients aren't technically PSA and are legal

# data[].attributes.body
Physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, and counseling ethics
- Respect for life and sanctity

# data[].attributes.body
Physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, and counseling ethics
- Autonomy, patients right to choose

# data[].attributes.body
Ethics in physician assisted dying and euthanasia

- PAS in legal in 8 jurisdictions in the US
- Legalization of PAS must be done by state
- Euthanasia and PAS are NOT the same.
- Two types of Euthanasia, one is Passive Euthanasia the other is Active Euthanasia.
- Passive is removing active medical support with the intent to produce death and allowing the patient to die naturally.
- Active is causing the death of someone through direct actions ex: lethal injection.

# data[].attributes.body
Ethics in physician assisted dying and euthanasia

- Survey in 2015showed support for PAS climbed compared to 2014 survey. This survey also showed 68% of those who supported PAS came from 18 to 34 year old age groups.
- Support for PAS has ranged form 52% to 68% from 1997 to 2015

# data[].attributes.headline
most of the time suicidal  thoughts are temporary 

# data[].attributes.subject
most of the time suicidal  thoughts are temporary 

# data[].attributes.body
Ethics in physician assisted dying and euthanasia

- "... the decision is made in the interest of the patient; the family should not be included except for giving voice to the patient's wishes."
- "Finally, the public, individuals, families, and health care providers need to openly and honestly discuss all aspect of this approach to disease management at the end of life."

# data[].attributes.body
(a) impulsive suicidality, (b) chronic suicidality, and (c) a well-considered and persistent wish to die.

# data[].attributes.body
Ethics in physician assisted dying and euthanasia
- Goes against Hippocratic Oath "doing no harm".
- May lead to decrease in patient and physician trust because of this violation.
- Teaching those in medical school how to appropriately take a human life.
- Religious views (Roman Christian Church, "Thou shalt not kill").
- Patient may not be in right mind.

# data[].attributes.body
medical aid in dying

# data[].attributes.body
Ethics in physician assisted dying and euthanasia
- The patient should be able to decided whether the ethical side is right or wrong for themselves.
- In interest of the patient, and the family has no say.
- Patient shouldn't have to suffer beyond the limits they choose.
- May lower health care cost (not by much, 1%, maybe).
- Patients choosing PAS may lead to more organ donations for not terminally ill patients.

# data[].attributes.body
In the Netherlands, both psychiatrists and general practitioners (GPs) respond to requests for EAS from patients who suffer from psychiatric illnesses

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6913818/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Focus: Death

Abstract

The question of a physician's involvement in aid in dying (or "assisted suicide") is being debated across the country. This article adopts no one position because its authors hold contrasting views. It aims instead to articulate the strongest arguments in favor of aid in dying and the strongest arguments opposed. It also addresses relevant terminology and reviews the history of its legalization in the United States.

Keywords: Aid in dying, Physician-assisted suicide, End of life, Death, Dying, Ethics, Bioethics, Autonomy, Suicide

Physician aid in dying is a controversial subject raising issues central to the role of physicians. According to the American Medical Association, it occurs when a physician provides "the necessary means and/or information" to facilitate a patient's choice to end his or her life [ 1].

This essay's authors hold varying views on the ethics of aid in dying; thus, the essay explores the subject without taking a position. It addresses its terminology; history of legalization in the United States; arguments in favor of aid in dying; and arguments opposed.

Terminology

Physician aid in dying goes by many names. Perhaps the best recognized is "physician-assisted suicide." Alternative terms include but are not limited to: death with dignity, doctor-prescribed death, right to die, and physician-assisted death. For simplicity's sake, we use aid in dying (AID), although we recognize that there will be some who object, no matter the label.

A variety of factors have led to these various neologisms. Supplanting the word "physician" with "medical," for example, makes it possible for non-physician clinicians to prescribe the lethal medications. Some advocates of AID prefer not to use the term "suicide;" they contend that AID is a medical practice, distinct from the act of suicide for a depressed or hopeless person [ 2]. By contrast, opponents maintain that the process of prematurely and deliberately ending one's life is always suicide, regardless of motivation. Some insist that dissociating "physician-assisted suicide" from other types of suicide demeans those who die by suicide for other reasons, as if only medically-assisted suicides are legitimate [ 3]. People on both sides of the issue worry whether "aid in dying" or "assisted dying" might be confused with palliative, hospice, or other care of dying patients.

In the United States, physician-assisted suicide or aid in dying has always been carefully distinguished from euthanasia. Euthanasia, also called mercy killing, refers to the administration of a lethal medication to an incurably suffering patient. It may be voluntary (the patient requests it) or involuntary. Euthanasia is illegal in the United States, but voluntary euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Colombia, Luxembourg, and Canada. It is decriminalized in the Netherlands.

At risk of compounding terminology further, Canada legalized in June 2016 "medical assistance in dying" (MAiD), which includes both "voluntary euthanasia" and "medically-assisted suicide [ 4]."

A Brief History of Legalization in the United States

In the early 1900s, advocates argued forcefully for legalizing euthanasia, which was already being secretly practiced in the US. According to Jacob Appel's work on this period, the eugenics movement strongly influenced discourse on euthanasia, and opponents of legalization tended to put forth practical rather than religious or moral arguments [ 5]. When efforts to legalize euthanasia failed, public discourse on the subject waned for many decades.

In the 1980s, the pathologist Jacob "Jack" Kevorkian began advertising in Detroit area newspapers as a death counselor [ 6]. He had studied the technique of Dutch physicians in the Netherlands, and created his own device with which patients could self-administer lethal medications. His first patient ended her life in 1990 while lying on a bed inside Kevorkian's Volkswagen van. He went on to assist with some 130 deaths by suicide over the next eight years. In 1999, after Kevorkian publicly distributed a video of himself directly euthanizing a patient, he was convicted of second-degree murder and sent to prison. Although Kevorkian reignited national debate about dying, his off-putting approach and personal idiosyncrasies prevented his becoming a national leader on the issue.

Several of Kevorkian's physician contemporaries filed suit against New York's Attorney General, arguing that the State of New York's prohibition against physician-assisted suicide violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They argued, in effect, that the right to refuse treatment was effectively the same as the right to end one's life. The Supreme Court ruled in response in Vacco v. Quill (1997) that there is no constitutionally-protected right to die. It left such decisions to the states. The Court also ruled in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) that a right to aid in dying was not protected by the Due Process Clause.

Oregon became the first to pass its death with dignity law that same year. More than a decade later, Washington legalized AID in 2008. Montana decriminalized the practice a year later. Vermont legalized it in 2013.

In 2014, a young Californian named Brittany Maynard was diagnosed with an astrocytoma and became a spokesperson for the legalization of AID. She was a newlywed facing terminal illness, and her story quickly captured the public imagination. Her well-publicized death by lethal ingestion in Oregon in 2014 influenced her home state of California to legalize AID in 2015. This was subsequently followed by Colorado in 2016, the District of Columbia in 2017, Hawai'i in 2018, and New Jersey and Maine in 2019.

Pro Arguments

The two most common arguments in favor of legalizing AID are respect for patient autonomy and relief of suffering. A third, related, argument is that AID is a safe medical practice, requiring a health care professional.

Respect for Patient Autonomy

Bioethics as a discipline gained significant traction in the 1970s, at a time when the concept of patient rights was pushing back against physician paternalism. The philosophers Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, in their well-known textbook Principles of Biomedical Ethics, advanced four fundamental principles as a framework for addressing ethically-complex cases: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Of these principles, autonomy undeniably exerts the most influence on current US medical practice [ 7].

Autonomy refers to governance over one's own actions. In the health care setting, this means a patient determines which medical interventions to elect or forgo. Patient autonomy serves as the justification for informed consent; only after a thorough explanation of risks and benefits can the patient have the agency to make a decision about treatments or participation in medical research. This logic, it is argued, naturally extends to AID; patients accustomed to making their own health care decisions throughout life should also be permitted to control the circumstances of their deaths.

Relief of Suffering

At its core, medicine has always aimed to relieve the suffering of patients from illness and disease. In the West, Hippocrates's ancient oath pledged to use treatments to help the sick, but not "administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so [ 8]." In contrast, advocates of AID argue that relief of suffering through lethal ingestion is humane and compassionate - if the patient is dying and suffering is refractory. Indeed, some of the most compelling arguments made in favor of AID come from patients, such as Maynard, who suffer from life-threatening illnesses.

A Safe Medical Practice

Aid in dying is lauded by advocates for being a safe medical practice - that is, doctors can ensure death in a way that suicide by other means cannot. Aid in dying thus becomes one option among many possibilities for care of the dying. Although individual state laws vary, most propose a number of safeguards to prevent abuses and to provide structure for an act that some people will do anyway, albeit more haphazardly or even dangerously. Safeguards include requiring that a patient electing AID be informed of all end-of-life options; that two witnesses confirm that the patient is requesting AID autonomously; and that patients are free of coercion and able to ingest the lethal medication themselves [ 9].

Con Arguments

Although opponents of AID offer many arguments ranging from pragmatic to philosophical, we focus here on concerns that the expansion of AID might cause additional, unintended harm through suicide contagion, slippery slope, and the deaths of patients suffering from depression.

Suicide Contagion

The sociologist David Phillips first described suicide contagion in the 1970s. He showed that after high profile suicides, society would witness a broad spike in suicides [ 10]. This was particularly true for individuals whose demographic profiles were similar to those of the person who died by suicide [ 11]. Although Phillips's work did not focus on AID, it has been corroborated recently by the spike in youth suicidality following the airing of Netflix's 13 Reasons Why [ 12].

The publicly-available data from Oregon, however, reveal that in the months surrounding Maynard's high-profile death in November 2014, the number of similarly situated individuals in Oregon who ended their lives by lethal ingestion more than doubled. Furthermore, from 1998 (when Oregon started recording data) to 2013, the number of lethal prescriptions written each year increased at an average of 12.1%. During 2014 and 2015, however, this increase doubled, suggesting that high-profile AID leads to more AID [ 13]. Although the data do not prove that an increase in AID causes more non-assisted suicide, a study by Jones and Paton found that the legalization of AID has been associated with "an increased rate of total suicides relative to other states and no decrease in non-assisted suicides [ 14]." They suggest that this means either AID does not inhibit non-assisted suicide or that AID makes non-assisted suicide more palatable for others.

Slippery Slope

Some opponents of AID express concern that once doctors are involved in the business of hastening patients' deaths; they have already slid down the slippery slope [ 15]. Others suggest that the slope is best exemplified by an expanding list of reasons for electing AID. Refractory physical pain is no longer the most compelling reason for ending one's life through lethal ingestion. Instead, cumulative Oregon data suggest that the vast majority of patients elect AID because they are concerned about "losing autonomy" (90.6%) or are "less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable" (89.1%). Some fear a "loss of dignity" (74.4%); being a "burden on family, friends/caregivers" (44.8%); or "losing control of bodily functions" (44.3%). Concern about inadequate pain control was the reason for pursuing a lethal ingestion in only 25.7% of cases [ 16].

Opponents also point to increasing calls in the US for euthanasia. In 2017, Senate Bill 893 was introduced to the Oregon State Legislature; it would have enabled patients to identify in a legal directive the person they wished to administer their lethal medications, effectively legalizing euthanasia [ 17]. Although this bill failed, the Oregon House passed HB2217 in 2019, which expanded the definition of "self-administer" to include options in addition to the oral ingestion of lethal drugs. The House also put forward HB2903, which seeks to expand the word "ingest" for lethal medication to "any means" and also proposes to expand the definition of "terminal disease" to include "a degenerative condition that at some point in the future" might cause death. It remains to be seen whether Oregon will become the first state to legalize euthanasia.

Although Belgium and The Netherlands permit both AID and euthanasia, the latter dominates. Over the years there has been a steady increase in acceptable criteria. Currently, patients who suffer from depression, dementia, or being "tired of life" may be euthanized. In some cases, minors may also be euthanized [ 18]. Published data from the Flanders region of Belgium highlights that vulnerable populations are especially likely to be euthanized. From 2007 to 2013, the largest increases in rates of granting euthanasia requests were among women, those 80 years or older, those with lower educational achievement, and those who died in nursing homes [ 19].

Depression in Advanced Illness

Up to half of patients with cancer suffer from symptoms of depression [ 20]. The elderly also suffer from high rates of depression and suicide [ 21]. Because depression often manifests somatically [ 22], if patients are not screened, clinicians miss half of all cases of clinical depression [ 23- 25]. Opponents of AID are concerned that in Oregon, greater than 70 percent of patients who elect AID are elderly and have cancer, but fewer than five percent are referred to a psychiatrist or psychologist to rule out clinical depression.

Conclusion

Physician AID remains a controversial subject relevant to the care of patients. The Hippocratic model dominated medical practice for thousands of years. With the rise of euthanasia in Europe during the second half of the twentieth century, many began to rethink this stance, but hastening the death of patients still sits uncomfortably with many physicians. Although a number of medical societies have begun to reconsider their positions, the American Medical Association's House of Delegates voted in June 2019 to maintain the organization's long-held opposition to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia [ 26]. Strong arguments remain both in favor and in opposition to the practice, and physicians have an ethical responsibility to remain informed on this timely issue.

Glossary

AID

aid in dying

MAiD

medical assistance in dying

Additional Information

Co-author Daniel Callahan, PhD, died after the first submission of this article.

References

Quill TE, Brody H. Physician recommendations and patient autonomy: finding a balance between physician power and patient choice. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:763-9. [[PubMed] Google Scholar]

Hippocrates of Cos The Oath. Loeb Classical Library. 1923;147:298-9. [Google Scholar]

Bridge JA, Greenhouse JB, Ruch D, Stevens J, Ackerman J, Sheftall AH, et al. Association between the release of Netflix's 13 Reasons Why and suicide rates in the United States: an interrupted times series analysis. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2019;Apr 28:pii: S0890-8567(19)30288-6. [[PubMed] PMC free article] [Google Scholar]

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/ama/80384

Articles from The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine are provided here courtesy of Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Focus: Death: Pros and Cons of Physician Aid in Dying

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The question of a physician's involvement in aid in dying (or "assisted suicide") is being debated across the country. This article adopts no one position because its authors hold contrasting views. It aims instead to articulate ...

# data[].attributes.body
http://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/43/2/183.full.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11013-020-09686-2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do Doctors Differentiate Between Suicide and Physician-Assisted Death? A Qualitative Study into the Views of Psychiatrists and General Practitioners - Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Physician-assisted death for patients suffering from psychiatric disorders is allowed in the Netherlands under certain circumstances. One of the central problems that arise with regard to this practice is the question of whether it is possible to distinguish between suicidality and a request for phy…

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.hcplive.com/view/twelve-myths-concerning-medical-aid-in-dying-or-physicianassisted-suicide

# data[].attributes.body
Retrospective interviews with relatives to describe the experiences of patients who died by euthanasia (EAS) or PAS in The Netherlands and found that, according to relatives, EAS had a positive impact on the quality of the end of their loved one’s life in 92 percent of cases, primarily by preventing or ending suffering.

# data[].attributes.body
Many doctors are either against PAS because they find ethical issues with it because they are uncomfortable with the idea of ending a person's life.

# data[].attributes.body
PAS is meant to bee seen as a way of reliving the patient in a way that no treatment ever could. when looked at it form this point of view, it is not harming the patient, but actually helping them.

# data[].attributes.body
Many patients that request PAS are also reported of having depression. Mental illness can affect the patient's ability to make a rational decision on life or death.

# data[].attributes.body
PAS is patients also have an affect on the patient's family and friends. This is an important factor in making the decision to die or not.

# data[].attributes.body
Patients who request assisted suicide prefer the term MAID or AID (Medical Aid in Dying) or PAS (Physician Assisted Suicide) instead of assisted suicide.

# data[].attributes.body
Oncologists (cancer) and palliative care physicians in Sweden are more against PAS than other physicians in different specialties.

# data[].attributes.body
The majority of young and old age physicians in Sweden agree on PAS and patient autonomy, while the middle generation disagree on PAS and are more drawn to non-maleficence ethics.

# data[].attributes.body
Patients rights and shared decision-making have been stressed more and more in medical education and training.

# data[].attributes.body
More people, patients and physicians, are accepting of PAS in 2020 than they were in 2007.

# data[].attributes.body
"Opponents of AID are concerned that in Oregon, greater than 70 percent of patients who elect AID are elderly and have cancer, but fewer than five percent are referred to a psychiatrist or psychologist to rule out clinical depression."

# data[].attributes.body
More than 70% of cases involved patients with cancer.

# data[].attributes.body
Public attitude in the U.S. and Europe in PAS has been increasingly positive.

# data[].attributes.body
Most suicides happen in context with serious psychiatric illness .

# data[].attributes.body
"Oregon became the first to pass its death with dignity law that same year. More than a decade later, Washington legalized AID in 2008. Montana decriminalized the practice a year later. Vermont legalized it in 2013."

# data[].attributes.body
“Patient autonomy serves as the justification for informed consent”

# data[].attributes.body
In developed countries, as well as ones that legalized PAS, public support has been increasing dramatically but physicians are lingering between sides.

# data[].attributes.body
Assisted suicide had been practiced secretly. Advocates have also argued forcefully in favor of legalizing medical aid in dying.

# data[].attributes.body
Less than 50% of physicians support legalizing euthanasia and PAS.

# data[].attributes.body
The most common reasons for PAS are...
- Loss of autonomy
- Loss of dignity
- Inability to enjoy life and regular activities
- Mental distress

# data[].attributes.body
Between 2008 and 2014, more than 200 psychiatric patients were euthanized by their own request in the Netherlands (1% of all euthanasia in that country). Among them, 52% had a diagnosis of personality disorder, 56% refused 1 or more offered treatments, and 20% had never even had an inpatient stay (1 indication of previous treatment intensity). When asked the primary reason for seeking PAS/euthanasia, 66% cited “social isolation and loneliness.”

# data[].attributes.body
If aid in dying becomes legal, it could cause a skyrocket in suicide rates as after high profile suicides, there would be an increase in suicide rates.

# data[].attributes.body
Physicians are often burdened when deciding if they want to go through with a euthanasia or PAS procedure or not. Every case is unique and different thus, the decision is not always straightforward.

# data[].attributes.body
The assisted suicide provides relief form the suffering that the patient is going through. It also abides by the Hippocrates oath to help the suffering. This would also prove that assisted suicide is ethical.

# data[].attributes.body
People worry that assisted suicide will become a routine practice rather than only on extreme cases.

# data[].attributes.body
Public support for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the U.S. has increased since the 1990s from about 47%-69%. In Central and Eastern Europe, support is decreasing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Falls under respect for patient autonomy

# data[].attributes.subject
Falls under respect for patient autonomy

# data[].attributes.body
The patient gets to make their own decisions in their assisted suicide, which puts the patient in control.

# data[].attributes.body
"Our fear is that assisted suicide could increase instances of fraud of the elderly and the sick ... With a state-sponsored way of bringing about the death of the elderly and unwell, inheritance fraudsters would be able to take advantage of the vulnerable without fear of consequences."

# data[].attributes.body
Oregon and Washington are some of the states that allow PAS

# data[].attributes.body
US court said there is not a constitutionally protected "right to commit suicide"