Physician Assisted Suicide Summary

Individuals often debate whether physician-assisted suicide is morally right or wrong. According to the text, Oregon has a law that was passed in 1998 that legalized physician-assisted suicide (Timmons, 2017). This law allows competent individuals who have only six months or less left to live and that resides in Oregon to request a prescription from a physician that will end one’s life (Timmons, 2017). Michael Gill discusses objections to autonomy-based justifications of physician-assisted suicide. Individuals that are against autonomy-based justifications of physician-assisted suicide believe that the autonomy-based justifications of the law are irrational and absurd. One of the objections to autonomy-based justifications of physician-assisted suicide is that the autonomy-based justification implies that non-terminally ill individuals should also be given the option to commit suicide. The individuals that oppose this law thinks that giving everyone, including individuals that are not terminally ill, the option of physician-assisted suicide is irrational.

Michael Gill responds to these objections in two ways.

The first way he responds is based on a libertarian viewpoint. Michael Gill points out that a libertarian viewpoint is that everyone should have the option to make any decision for oneself that they want. In addition, their viewpoint is that whether it is morally right or wrong should not be legally relevant if no one else is harmed. The other way Michael Gill responds to the objections is by saying that the law is not implying that assisted suicide should be legal for non-terminally ill individuals. He also points out that physician-assisted suicide does not violate autonomy since a person that is terminally ill will lose their decision-making ability regardless if they commit suicide or not. Through the law that legalizes physician-assisted suicide, a terminally ill individual can decide whether to end their life through suicide or let the illness kill

them.
Gill points out that autonomy is an individual’s ability to make decisions that decide one’s own fate. The physician-assisted suicide of a terminally ill individual does not violate their autonomy because the amount of time they have left to live removes many of the choices that are big decisions and the nature of the illness can prevent any big decisions being made. Gill also points out that physician-assisted suicide allows a terminally ill person to make the big decision of how and when to die. He also mentions that a healthy individual can make big decisions in the future and that by committing suicide they would be violating autonomy. In addition, Gill mentions that some individuals with a terminal illness might still be able to make big decisions that can change their destiny. However, that is not the case for every terminally ill person. Therefore, the law gives competent terminally ill individuals the choice of suicide because suicide may be right for some people. According to Gill, some philosophers argue that the moral foundations of the medical profession prohibit physicians from assisting in a patient’s suicide because the physician is making a nonmedical decision that their patient’s life is unworthy of living, it violates the medical duty to promote health, and a physician has the fundamental duty to life.