Citation

Fowler WC, Koenig HG. J. Relig. Health 2024; 63(2): 1058-1074.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2024, Academy of Religion and Mental Health, Publisher Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s10943-023-01939-9

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

There is a pressing debate in the United States concerning the implied physicians' obligation to do no harm and the status of legalizing physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Key issues that underpin the debate are important to consider. These include: (1) foundational medical beginnings; (2) euthanasia's historical and legal background context; and (3) the key arguments held by those for and against legalization of PAS. This paper reviews the major claims made by proponents for the legalization of PAS and the associated complexities and concerns that help underscore the importance of conscience freedoms. Relief of suffering, respect for patient autonomy, and public policy arguments are discussed in these contexts. We argue here that the emphasis by healthcare providers should be on high quality and compassionate care for those at the end of life's journey who are questioning whether to prematurely end their lives. If medicine loses its chief focus on the quality of caring--even when a cure is not possible--it betrays its objective and purpose. In this backdrop, legalization of PAS harms not only healthcare professionals, but also the medical profession's mission itself. Medicine's foundation is grounded in the concept of never intentionally to inflict harm. Inflicting death by any means is not professional or proper, and is not trustworthy medicine.

Language: en

Keywords

Conscience freedoms; Euthanasia; Hippocratic Oath; Palliative care; Physician-assisted suicide; Suicide