Balancing Ethics, Education, and Compassion in Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia
Abstract
Objective: It is 2024, and the debate of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia remains highly complex and impactful. This discussion extends to the legal and ethical theories that affect these issues, but also profoundly impact real lives and families. Understanding where we stand today requires a look back at historical contexts and current perspectives, while pointing out the necessity of raising awareness concerning educating healthcare professionals and the role of palliative care. Methods: A review of historical developments, legal cases, and current perspectives related to physician assisted suicide and euthanasia was conducted to understand how these practices have evolved and how they influence modern medical decision-making and ethical discussions. Results: A major turning point occurred in the 1980s when Jack Kevorkian’s assisted suicide device was made, raising concerns in courts, including the Supreme Court cases of Vacco v. Quill (1997) and Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), which ultimately ruled that the legality of physician-assisted suicide should be determined by individual states. Oregon’s 1999 “Death with Dignity” law set the standard and became evident in other states with similar legislation, showing a growing trend of acceptance of physician- assisted suicide in the US, while euthanasia remains legalized only in a few countries abroad. Conclusion: The current issue remains the debate between individual autonomy and fears of ethical misuse, along with possible consequences for palliative care. Providing thorough training to healthcare providers and ensuring that patients and families receive clear information about their choices must be a priority. A common approach to physician-assisted suicide may help standardize care and address ethical and practical challenges while emphasizing respect and compassion in end-of-life decisions.
Keywords
References
- 1. Dugdale LS, Lerner BH, Callahan D. Pros and cons of physician aid in dying. Yale J Biol Med. 2019;92(4):747- 50. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31866790/
- 2. Al Rabadi L, LeBlanc M, Bucy T, Ellis LM, Hershman DL, Meyskens FL, et al. Trends in medical aid in dying in Oregon and Washington. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(8):e198648. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.8648.
- 3. Sleeman KE, Timms A, Gillam J, Anderson JE, Harding R, Sampson EL, et al. Priorities and opportunities for palliative and end of life care in United Kingdom health policies: a national documentary analysis. BMC Palliat Care. 2021;20:108. doi:10.1186/s12904-021-00802-6.
- 4. Walker RM. Physician-assisted suicide: the legal slippery slope. Cancer Control. 2001;8(1):25-31. doi:10.1177/107327480100800104.
- 5. Evenblij K, Pasman HRW, van Delden JJM, van der Heide A, van de Vathorst S, Willems DL, et al. Physicians’ experiences with euthanasia: a cross-sectional survey amongst a random sample of Dutch physicians to explore their concerns, feelings and pressure. BMC Fam Pract. 2019;20:177. doi:10.1186/s12875-019-1067-8.
- 6. Roest B, Trappenburg M, Leget C. The involvement of family in the Dutch practice of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide: a systematic mixed studies review. BMC Med Ethics. 2019;20:23. doi:10.1186/s12910-019-0361-2.
- 7. Pew Research Center. Religious groups’ views on end-of-life issues. 2013 Nov 21. Available from: https://www. pewresearch.org/religion/2013/11/21/religious-groups-views-on-end-of-life-issues/
Details
Primary Language
English
Subjects
Clinical Sciences (Other)
Journal Section
Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis
Authors
Srishty Agarwal
This is me
0009-0004-3536-7870
India
Ramsha Mahmood
0009-0008-2437-496X
United States
Rohit Jain
This is me
0000-0002-9101-2351
United States
Publication Date
March 10, 2026
Submission Date
December 21, 2024
Acceptance Date
July 9, 2025
Published in Issue
Year 2026 Volume: 8
