Position Paper

Should We Support Physician-Assisted Suicide?

Submitted by Group 2:
Ranier Belarmino
Precious Lovely Buenaventura
Ryan Burce
John Sigfred Gomez Bobis
Ricky Mae Caburnay
Jelan Ray Batac Yamo

Submitted to:
Sir Jesse Songcayawon

Page 1
Table of Contents

I. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………. 3
II. Pros and Cons
A. Pros ………………………………………………………………………………….4
B. Cons …………………………………………………………………………………6
III. Position ……………………………………………………………………………………..8
IV. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….10
V. References …………………………………………………………………………………..11

Page 2
I. Introduction

Euthanasia is the intentional act of taking a human life for the purpose of relieving pain
and suffering. This can occur actively or passively. Active euthanasia involves an intentional act
on the part of the physician toward a patient that causes death. Passive euthanasia involves
withholding treatment with the intent to cause death. Physician assisted suicide, “PAS”, is a type
of voluntary euthanasia in which a doctor either intentionally provides information to a patient
about how to commit suicide or prescribes the means that allow the patient to commit suicide.

Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS), is a form of assisted suicide. It can be called in many

different types of names like Physician aid in dying (PAD), physician-assisted dying, medical
assistance in dying (MAiD), and many more. When a patient is in excruciating pain and has a
slim chance of recovery, a patient may request that doctors subject them to death by
administering lethal drugs at a time of their choosing. Active PAS and passive PAS are the two
types of PAS. Active PAS occurs when doctors kill patients at their request, whereas passive
PAS occurs when doctors allow patients to die. The question of whether PAS is morally correct
remains unresolved, with different perspectives based on different theories and reasoning.

Many terminally sick individuals who are suffering experience worry as they are nearing
the end of their lives. They have distressing feelings such as being a nuisance to families and
friends, and they are concerned about being in pain and losing control of the quality of their own
lives. This is what has caused several people with terminal illnesses to explore physician-assisted
suicide end-of-life choices.

According to Dugdale, Lerner, and Callahan (2019), physician-assisted suicide has

always been distinguished from euthanasia, sometimes known as mercy killing. Many
proponents pushed in the 1990s for the legalization of euthanasia. In the 1980s, pathologist Jacob
Kevorkian advertised as a death counselor, researched Dutch physicians' techniques and
developed his own apparatus that allowed patients to self-administer lethal medicines. Jacob
Kevorkian assisted130 deaths by suicide. Kevorkian sparked public discussion on death and
assisted suicide. Many argued that the prohibition on physician-assisted suicide violated the
Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. They claimed that the right to decline
treatment was essentially the same as power to terminate one's personal life. Some countries
already legalized PAS but many more question if its ethically and morally right.

Since then, there has been much discussion over whether the act was ethically justifiable
or not. Despite ethical constraints, calls to legalize physician-assisted suicide have risen in recent
years, as has public interest in the issue.

Page 3
Research questions:
1. Is Physician-Assisted Suicide ethically justifiable or not?
2. How does PAS produce more good and more happiness than bad?
3. Does self-determination extends to even the time of one’s death?

II. Pros and Cons

A. Pros
If the pique interest of a patient is death, then death constitutes to a good morality. If a
patient suffers from a terminal disease and is experiencing body disintegration, she would face
death that she believes will presuppose suffering and indignity. If the law denies her request to
be killed intendedly and the instances may be consistent with the obedience towards the law but
is morally wrong, then we should take a step and consider changing the law instead.

Suppose that there is a patient who has a case of permanent disability to function
normally due to a brain damage, and life would not be sustained unless there is a health care
technology that would assist the heart to function. If the doctors’ discourse is subjected to
believing that medical treatments could provide no cure but just to sustain the life per se and has
no capacity to participate in any activities, then her physicians may lawfully remove the life-
sustaining therapies. People may assume that the death resulted from the incompetency or failure
to accomplish their obligation to protect and save life in such circumstances. However, in other
situations, mostly physicians are not authorized to use inactivity that would hasten predicted
deaths of their patients.

Legal courts and parliaments should take a step in handling this type of context. The
context of not being responsible for the obligation of physicians to save lives of their patients is
seen equally with the active or inactive ways of impeding life-sustaining treatments due to the
patient’s severe incompetent health conditions. In other words, against the popular purpose of a
physician of saving lives, it is seen that the moral and legal status of failure to save a life through
the hindering activity of supplementing treatments is equally directed to actively taking a life.
However, there are circumstances that begs to differ the unjust perspective towards physician-
assisted suicide.

Once doctors are authorized to make clinical judgements of passively ending their
patient’s lives on such assertions, active euthanasia is the consecutive subjected discourse of the
patient. Therapy must be considered to be of no medical benefit or weigh burden for extremely
incompetent patients when there are instead, adverse effects that follows the opposition to the
treatment’s purpose. If death is in the best interests of certain patients, and if discontinuing life-
sustaining therapy is beneficial in this case – then death is a moral good for these individuals.

Page 4
And if that's the case, why is it immoral to want to achieve this moral good? Consider a doctor
who refuses to remove life support from an incompetent patient even if the clinical team believes
it is necessary. The physician does it for no other reason than he realizes that a component of his
plan is for her to die quickly and painlessly. The rejection, far from being morally admirable,
should be seen as irreconcilable with what is truly ethically important, which is the patient's best
interests. Doctors should be permitted to remove life-sustaining care when they want to both
expedite death and relieve suffering, as long as the conditions are clinically warranted. In this
case, the distinction is meaningless from a moral standpoint. Involuntary active euthanasia
should have the same legal and professional position as passively terminating the lives of
extremely incompetent people.

Anti-PAS may assert that such benefits and burden judgements must not be related to
concluding that the patient’s condition is no long worth to live a life, but it is naturally the will of
patients to undergo active euthanasia due to the known conditions. If the patient per se doesn’t
want to live due to the agonies and distress, it is morally wrong to neglect the decision of a
person who owns the life under the line. Anti-PAS may also express that withholding treatment
from extremely incompetent individuals should never be done with the intention of causing
death, even if death is a likely outcome. Even so, it can only be done to help the people who are
in pain. It may also be concluded that people who opposes the will of putting an end to a
person’s life regardless of the sufferings they condition to have, embodies ignorance or
neglection of the truth that the patient’s condition is irreversible and only has the latter side of
dying in the end. The empathy they possess is construed mistakenly as no person would like to
prolong the woe and excruciation they face with.

Therefore, people have the right to choose whether they want to live or die in a
euthanasia situation. When there are no dependents who may apply pressure in one direction or
another, the individual's right to choose should take precedence. There are no further inquiries to
be asked as long as the patient is lucid and his or her goal is obvious and unmistakable, (The
Independent, 2002).

As stated by Goodman (2018), people who are sick or bedridden prefer euthanasia
because it is a dignified end. Their families would no longer be burdened if they ended their
lives. Euthanasia can help to alleviate or prevent human suffering by releasing those who are in
excruciating pain or whose quality of life has deteriorated significantly. It is wicked to make
someone suffer against their choice. In addition, people with terminal conditions spend a lot of
money, resources, and equipment to stay alive and breathing. People might die in peace instead
of wasting these resources for weeks, months, or even years, saving money and space for
hospitals. According to Marietta (2011), euthanasia can assist free up medical finances because
all of the money spent on medical bills will be wasted when the family member dies.

Page 5
B. Cons
Two areas would be focused upon when discussing the foreseen issues about physician-
assisted suicide or PAS. These are the religious and lawful perspectives that voice out to put a
stop to the practice of PAS. Most nations are religiously hostile to euthanasia and assisted
suicide. According to Strinic (2015), it is unlawful to undergo euthanasia since it might lead to
consecutive killing and the destruction of one life. Euthanasia is a clear breach of doctors'
Hippocratic Oath because it damages patients' faith in the medical profession. They claimed that
only God may take life. Various justifications are often given against euthanasia, as stated in an
essay authored by Brazier, Y. (2018). This encompasses the patient's mental disease, culpability,
and competence. It indicates that the patient believes they are harming their families' physical,
emotional, and mental well-being, which influences their decision to do so.

Anti-euthanasia's side also suggested that a person suffering from depression is more
inclined to want euthanasia or assisted suicide, and the depression alone should not be the basis
of pursuing euthanasia, which might make the decision more difficult. The majority of
theological reasons for assisted suicide argue that euthanasia is death against God's will. These
arguments are widely believed and made by Christians. Many of the central points of this
perspective, including the sanctity of life, overlap with a lot of ethical arguments. The basis of
the religious arguments synthesized by religious men was solely based on the thought that God
grants and takes away life, and that no human being has the authority to do so. A doctor who
euthanizes a terminally sick patient, in this perspective, is sacrilegiously "playing God."

Religious believers also believe that human life is precious since it was created in God's
image. To advocate euthanasia, even for oneself, is to imply that life is useless, and no one has
the authority to make such a declaration since our essential value is our relationship with God.
According to the Christian religion, a person's worth is not determined by mobility, intelligence,
or life accomplishments. As a result, a third theological claim asserts that all human lives are
valued since we were all created by the same God. As a result, even the most seriously sick
individuals have the same inherent value as other people. Treating their lives as worthless, as
would be the case if euthanasia were prescribed, would be against God.

The second area that mainly targets Physician-assisted suicide is related to its lawful
issues. Legalizing assisted suicide gives vast power and authority among physicians because they
are given the ability to decide when to “kill” their patients. Some doctors provide information to
their disabled patients on which they would base their decisions concerning euthanasia.
Therefore, there is no regulatory law that would restrict the doctors enough to take the power
Page 6
away from taking the lives of their patients. There are pieces of evidence that had been shown to
the witnesses in which doctors synthesize decisions that are not properly discoursed, thus,
gaining the views of irresponsibility on the usage of their power that kills more people even if
there’s still a chance for the patients to live a longer life. Do Not Resuscitate orders, for example,
are more commonly utilized for black individuals, alcoholics, non-English speakers, and persons
afflicted with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, according to research. This evidence shows
that doctors have assumptions about whether lives are more or less valued and that they apply
these stereotypes when counseling patients on their choices.

Additionally, PAS leads to adverse effects against the sanctity of life, human law, and
psychological attribute. Euthanasia is against spiritual care and so breaches the sanctity of life.
According to the BBC (2014), there are three primary reasons why people believe it is wrong to
murder humans: all human beings should be respected, human life is a basic good rather than an
instrumental good, and human life is sacrosanct. Euthanasia erodes society's regard for life's
sanctity and robs life and character of their purity and holiness. Because life is important, it
should be protected and cherished. Everyone should have fun and live a happy life. Every human
being has a natural desire to live longer. People will die for no cause if euthanasia is permitted.
Simply because euthanasia is legal, the mortality rate will rise and the number of individuals who
do it will grow. They don't have to be concerned about self-destruction. Their allies will be
euthanasia and the law. And it is the greatest nightmare a country could ever have. Euthanasia is
unquestionably illegal in the majority of countries. Every individual's death must have a purpose.
If a family member becomes unwell, don't be afraid to spend all of the money in the bank
account. Money is nothing in comparison to life. Live your life in line with the Creator's will.

Individuals are also encouraged and pushed to commit active euthanasia by making it
legal. This is one of the reasons why euthanasia violates human law which safeguards everyone's
right to live. The right to life is regarded as the most basic of human rights. All other rights to
liberty, privacy, family life, and so on are worthless without it. That right comes with no
limitations. A human being's right to life may not be conditional on achieving a certain degree of
intelligence or aptitude (Brazier, 1996). Because euthanasia undermines the core human right to
life, death is permanent and irrevocable. No matter what rationale is used, it is still considered as
killing someone else's life, and it is the worst mistake individuals can do in their lives.

Lastly, suicidal stimuli are also a result of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Legalizing euthanasia, according to Kavanagh (2010), would have a wide range of severely
negative consequences. It would erode the protection provided to all life and enable the
execution of those who do not volunteer to be murdered. They may have several issues in their
lives and believe that none of them have solutions. But they didn't realize that answers may
Page 7
arrive at a certain time and in a specific area. People should be patient until a solution is found.
Therefore, we should never legalize active euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide because not
only does it violate the law of God, but it also violates the law of human nature as well as the
irony it synthesizes with the incremented law of anti-killing.

III. Position

People who argue for the use of physician-assisted suicide believe in the fundamental
principle of autonomy. This allows for the patient to have the right to choose what is best for his
or her life. In this case, it is whether he or she should live or die. Advocates for physician-
assisted suicide also believe that no one should have to live through terminal suffering, and that
if the physician cannot alleviate the pain any other way, then aiding in death is acceptable. On
the contrary, people who are against the actions of physician-assisted suicide believe that it is not
in the physician’s job description to decide the fate of the patient, even if patient consent is
given; they also believe that killing is intrinsically wrong. Many physicians and people fit their
beliefs on this matter within ethical theories. Ethical theories help shape a person’s morality and
their behavior and actions in regard to their moral views. In order to understand how many
people would determine their position on physician-assisted suicide, we must examine some of
these ethical theories and determine their positions.

From an ethical standpoint, the legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide is more

beneficial than detrimental to society when it comes to the patients' mental health. By legalizing
PAS, it provides the patient a sense of relief that should they feel like they cannot brave through
the final stages of the illness they are facing, they have the option to hasten their end-time rather
than suffer more than they already have. Physicians should not be accounted for murder in these
situations as these are evidently consented to and allowed to by the patient themselves rather
than done without their knowledge. as such, it is proof that the patient has been given autonomy
over their own body and in turn, it also helps the physician achieve their role - to give relief to
the suffering of patients. Patient Autonomy has been defended by Peter Rogatz (2001) where he
states, "Society recognizes the competent patient’s right to decide what will or will not be done
to his or her body. There is almost universal agreement that a competent adult has the right to
self-determination, including the right to have life-sustaining treatment withheld or withdrawn. If
patients seek such help, it is cruel to leave them to fend for themselves, weighing options that are
both traumatic and uncertain, when humane assistance could be made available." He has also
talked about a physician's role to relieve suffering wherein he quoted Marcia Angell, saying,
"The highest ethical imperative of doctors should be to provide care in whatever way best serves
patients’ interests, in accord with each patient’s wishes, not with a theoretical commitment to
preserving life no matter what the cost in suffering."

Page 8
 There are three primary arguments in favor of PAS: autonomy, minimizing pain and
suffering, and the idea that there is no morally relevant difference between taking steps to hasten
death and allowing the dying process to occur. Even though a physician intentionally ending the
life of a patient was considered unthinkable for centuries, western sentiment seems to be
changing. In fact, both euthanasia and PAS are sometimes referred to as “death with dignity.”
But the Bible teaches that euthanasia and PAS are actually enemies of dignity. Let’s consider
what the Bible might have to say about these arguments.

For PAS They wish to take away the suffering of terminally ill individuals, and they may
even claim that there is a moral obligation to do so. In fact, in Canada, if a physician refuses to
participate in euthanasia or PAS, he is legally required to refer patients to a physician who will.
But the Bible teaches that suffering is not necessarily something that should be avoided at all
costs. Romans 5:3 teaches us to “rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces
endurance.” Similarly, James teaches this: “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of
various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let
steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing”
(James 1:2-4). As Christians we believe that killing someone is not in our rights, only God has
the right to take our lives. (Genesis 9:5- 6; Exodus 20:13; 23:7)

The controversy surrounding medically assisted suicide fundamentally hinges on a

difference in perspectives and priorities. Some call it a premature end of life; others see it as
appropriate end-of-life care. Physician-assisted suicide provides a viable option to ease suffering
during the worst time in the life of a victim, their family, and their friends. In California, the
person requesting the prescription must be evaluated by two doctors with the consensus that the
person has less than six months to live. They must then submit two oral requests at least 15 days
apart, along with a written request. After these steps, a doctor may prescribe the person death-
inducing medication. Brittany Maynard, an outspoken advocate for death with dignity, explained
this freedom of choice. “Who has the right to tell me that I don’t deserve this choice? That I
deserve to suffer for weeks or months in tremendous amounts of physical and emotional pain?
Why should anyone have the right to make that choice for me?” Maynard said in an opinion
piece for CNN in November 2014. Maynard spoke to a personal issue with implications to her
own life. At age 29, she received a terminal cancer diagnosis. After extensive research and
conversation with her loved ones, Maynard decided to receive medication that would allow her
to end her life. She received the medication, knowing that there was no cure for her cancer. She
saved the prescription for a time when her condition would become worse, when her suffering
would become debilitating and unbearable. “I am not suicidal,” Maynard said. “If I were, I
would have consumed that medication long ago. I do not want to die. But I am dying. And I want

Page 9
to die on my own terms.” What physician-assisted death gives to patients is the peace and
comfort of knowing that they can choose when they die. They can surround themselves with
their loved ones during those final moments, and they have a way to avoid the suffering of a
prolonged death. Medically assisted suicide is not ending the life of a living person, it is ending
the suffering of a dying person. Death is not easy it is a time of pain and grief. It is a small
comfort to know that a loved one will not suffer and that he or she can leave this world with the
dignity that life deserves. God controls life and death. All human’s days are numbered, and he
knows every moment. Physician assisted suicide does not rob God of his power or give doctors
or patients the ability to play God. In this world of pain and suffering, not every condition will
have a cure. What this opportunity offers is not a cure to a disease, but a refuge from the
suffering of terminal illnesses. Proper end-of-life care can and should include medication that
will bring that pain to an end. When the greatest scientific minds cannot find a cure, physician
assisted suicide is the only ethical option, giving the choice to the victim. “Simply having the
choice provides people a sense of peace in the face of uncertainty and fear that their suffering
might be unbearable,” Compassion & Choices, a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing
end-of-life care, explained on its website. “It allows people the freedom to die in control, with
dignity.” fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

IV. Conclusion

Considering the two main principles behind the concept of PAS - namely "Patient
Autonomy" and "Relief of Suffering" - it would be easier to conclude that there are more benefits
to legalizing it outside the scope of financial and political issues. It is less about the idea of
killing the patients, but more about helping subside the suffering of the patients and aiding them
when they reach out to ask for help.

Weighing up the results of the PAS, it seems to produce more good and more happiness
than bad. Letting the patient die first, and most importantly, relieve the patient of the pain. Also,
it would save the family, friends, and people close to the patient the agony of seeing him in a
state of unending and severe pain not forgetting the financial aspect of the whole process. On the
other side, the family and friends would lose the patient but for an agreeable reason. This means
that the act brings more good than bad and also more happiness than when they are kept alive.
The major question here is whether the self-determination extends to even the time of
one’s death. Most people are genuinely concerned by the nature of their death-whether it will be
painful and with a lot of suffering. Everyone would want to retain control of their last days alive
as well as the dignity that comes with it.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Page 10
Page 11
 V. References
Adventist.org Team. (2021) A Statement of Consensus on Care for the Dying.
Adventist.Org. https://www.adventist.org/official-statements/care-for-the-dying/
American Medical Association. (2016). Physician-Assisted Suicide. https://www.ama-
assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/physician-assisted-suicide
Brazier, M. (N.D.) Euthanasia and the law. British Medical Bulletin 1996;52 (No. 2):317-
325
Brazier, Y. (2018). What are euthanasia and assisted suicide? MedicalNewsToday.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/182951#euthanasia-and-assisted-suicide-
Doyal L., Doyal L. (2001) Why active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should
be legalised. BMJ. (2001)
Dugdale L.S., Lerner B.H., Callahan D. (2019) Pros and Cons of Physician Aid in Dying.
Yale J. Biol. Med. 2019 92:747–750.
Gill, M. (2007) A moral defense of Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law. Promoting
the interdisciplinary study of death and dying Volume 10, 2005 - Issue 1
Goodman, P. (2021). Euthanasia Pros and Cons: Should People Have the Right to Die?
Soapboxie. https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/Euthanasia-pros-and-cons-Should-people-have-
the-right-to-die
Hudson, M., O'Rourke, M.A., O'Rourke, M.C.(2017) Reasons to Reject Physician
Assisted Suicide/Physician Aid in Dying. Journal of Oncology Practice 13, no. 10
Lagay, F. (2003) Physician-Assisted Suicide: The Law and Professional Ethics. Virtual
Mentor. 2003;5(1):17-18.
Macleod R., Malpas P., Wilson D. (2012) Assisted or hastened death: the healthcare
practitioner's dilemma. Global J Health Sci. 2012;4(6):87–98.
McKinnon B, Orellana-Barrios M. (2019) Ethics in physician-assisted dying and
euthanasia. The Southwest Respiratory and Critical Care Chronicles 2019;7(30):36–42. The
Department of Internal Medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in Lubbock,
Texas
Mueller, P., Sulmasy, L.S. (2017) Ethics and the Legalization of Physician-Assisted
Suicide: An American College of Physicians Position Paper. for the Ethics, Professionalism and
Human Rights Committee of the American College of Physicians.
N.A. (2011). Euthanasia and How it Can Help. TeenInk.
https://www.teenink.com/nonfiction/all/article/334904/Euthanasia-and-How-itCan-Help

Page 12
 N.A. (2015) The Argument Against Assisted Suicide | Medical Ethics and Health. Sites at
Penn State. https://sites.psu.edu/mehealth/2015/03/16/arguments-against-assisted-suicide/
N.A. (2019) Peter Kavanagh, LLB. Euthanasia. https://euthanasia.procon.org/source-
biographies/peter-kavanagh/?sourceID=012883
N.A. (2021). Medical Definition of Physician-assisted suicide. MedicineNet.
https://www.medicinenet.com/physician-assisted_suicide/definition.htm
N.A. (2021) Why Assisted Suicide Must Not Be Legalized. Disability Rights Education
& Defense Fund. https://dredf.org/public-policy/assisted-suicide/why-assisted-suicide-must-not-
be-legalized/
N.A. (N.D.) The Right to Assisted Suicide. retrieved from:
https://www.lonestar.edu/rightto-assist-suicide.htm
Weir, K. (2017) Assisted dying: The motivations, benefits and pitfalls of hastening death.
Monitor on Psychology December 2017, Vol 48, No. 11.

Page 13