Article Text
Abstract
Drawing the line on physician assistance in physician-assisted death (PAD) continues to be a contentious issue in many legal jurisdictions across the USA, Canada and Europe. PAD is a medical practice that occurs when physicians either prescribe or administer lethal medication to their patients. As more legal jurisdictions establish PAD for at least some class of patients, the question of the proper scope of this practice has become pressing. This paper presents an argument for restricting PAD to the terminally ill that can be accepted by defenders as well as critics of PAD for the terminally ill. The argument appeals to fairness-based paternalism and the social meaning of medical practice. These two considerations interact in various ways, as the paper explains. The right way to think about the social meaning of medical practice bears on fair paternalism as it relates to PAD and vice versa. The paper contends that these considerations have substantial force when directed against proposals to extend PAD to non-terminally ill patients, but considerably less force when directed against PAD for the terminally ill. The paper pays special attention to the case of non-terminally ill patients who suffer from treatment-resistant depression, as these patients present a potentially strong case for extending PAD beyond the terminally ill.
- end-of-life
- paternalism
- psychiatry
- public policy
- clinical ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors LAJ, SW and FGM all participated in drafting this manuscript by making substantial contributions to the writing, editing and revising of the manuscript. All authors also made substantial contributions to the design and conception of the manuscript and provided final approval of the completed manuscript. All authors accept accountability for all aspects of the work.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Other content recommended for you
- Treatment-resistant depression and physician-assisted death
- Competence for physician-assisted death of patients with mental disorders: theoretical and practical considerations
- Physician-assisted death does not violate professional integrity
- Why the irremediability requirement is not sufficient to deny psychiatric euthanasia for patients with treatment-resistant depression
- Treatment-resistant major depressive disorder and assisted dying
- Value promotion as a goal of medicine
- Suicide by advance directive?
- When slippery slope arguments miss the mark: a lesson from one against physician-assisted death
- Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in treatment-resistant depression: the evidence thus far
- Safeguarding choice at the end of life