Those who argue that PAS is ethically justifiable offer the following sorts of arguments:

  • Respect for autonomy: Decisions about time and circumstances death are very personal. Competent person should have right to choose death.
  • Justice: Justice requires that we “treat like cases alike.” Competent, terminally ill patients are allowed to hasten death by treatment refusal. For some patients, treatment refusal will not suffice to hasten death; only option is suicide. Justice requires that we should allow assisted death for these patients.

    Those who argue that PAS is ethically justifiable offer the following sorts of arguments:

    • Respect for autonomy: Decisions about time and circumstances death are very personal. Competent person should have right to choose death.
    • Justice: Justice requires that we “treat like cases alike.” Competent, terminally ill patients are allowed to hasten death by treatment refusal. For some patients, treatment refusal will not suffice to hasten death; only option is suicide. Justice requires that we should allow assisted death for these patients.
    • Compassion: Suffering means more than pain; there are other physical and psychological burdens. It is not always possible to relieve suffering. Thus PAS may be a compassionate response to unbearable suffering.
    • Individual liberty vs. state interest: Though society has strong interest in preserving life, that interest lessens when person is terminally ill and has strong desire to end life. A complete prohibition on assisted death excessively limits personal liberty. Therefore PAS should be allowed in certain cases.
    • Openness of discussion: Some would argue that assisted death already occurs, albeit in secret. For example, morphine drips ostensibly used for pain relief may be a covert form of assisted death or euthanasia. That PAS is illegal prevents open discussion, in which patients and physicians could engage. Legalization of PAS would promote open discussion.