Until Death Do Us Part: Physician-Assisted Suicide and End-of-Life Care
David Jordan, Student, The Ohio State University
Student Essay - First Runner Up
The preeminence of the value of autonomy in law, medicine, and philosophy is a defining feature of life in a liberal democratic society such as our own. However, at the end of life, questions about what it means to be legally and morally “free” in the truest sense are fraught by the realities of human vulnerability. I examine the argument for physician-assisted suicide on the grounds of autonomy–the notion of a “right to die.” I propose that no such right exists. I criticize the argument from autonomy on two fronts: the practical and moral. More specifically, I argue that the unique difficulties of measuring the capacity of patients for autonomous decision-making at the end-of-life makes it very difficult to safeguard the assisted suicide process from abuse, and moreover, assisted suicide undermines the inherent value of human life on which the obligation to respect autonomy finds its footing in the first place.
In the ongoing debate about the appropriate role and substance of palliative care, it is crucial for medical professionals, politicians, and laypeople alike to consider the far-reaching implications of our own assumptions about the nature of human existence. Oftentimes our justifiable aim for moral neutrality–manifested in the expansion of individual choice at any cost–actually undermines the ability of ordinary citizens to make the kinds of choices that would best contribute to their flourishing. Physician-assisted suicide must be understood within the broader context of human community, cognitive biases, and the nature of vulnerability. Such considerations invite us to examine the ways in which our own presuppositions impact not only our own choices and desires, but the social norms and anthropological assumptions that characterize our common life.
In the ongoing debate about the appropriate role and substance of palliative care, it is crucial for medical professionals, politicians, and laypeople alike to consider the far-reaching implications of our own assumptions about the nature of human existence. Oftentimes our justifiable aim for moral neutrality–manifested in the expansion of individual choice at any cost–actually undermines the ability of ordinary citizens to make the kinds of choices that would best contribute to their flourishing. Physician-assisted suicide must be understood within the broader context of human community, cognitive biases, and the nature of vulnerability. Such considerations invite us to examine the ways in which our own presuppositions impact not only our own choices and desires, but the social norms and anthropological assumptions that characterize our common life.