Non-faith-based arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.
This article is a complement to "A Template for Non-Religious-Based Discussions Against Euthanasia" by Melissa Harintho, Nathaniel Bloodworth, and E. Wesley Ely which appeared in the February 2015Linacre Quarterly. Herein we build upon Daniel Sulmasy's opening and closing arguments from the 2014 Intelligence Squared debate on legalizing assisted suicide, supplemented by other non-faith-based arguments and thoughts, providing four nontheistic arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: (1) "it offends me"; (2) slippery slope; (3) "pain can be alleviated"; (4) physician integrity and patient trust.Lay Summary:Presented here are four non-religious, reasonable arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: (1) "it offends me," suicide devalues human life; (2) slippery slope, the limits on euthanasia gradually erode; (3) "pain can be alleviated," palliative care and modern therapeutics more and more adequately manage pain; (4) physician integrity and patient trust, participating in suicide violates the integrity of the physician and undermines the trust patients place in physicians to heal and not to harm.
The Department of Medicine and Divinity School, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Daniel P
DP
Sulmasy
Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
John M
JM
Travaline
Catholic Medical Association, Bala Cynwyd, PA, USA.
Louise A
LA
Mitchell
Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA; Veteran's Affairs Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center (GRECC) of the Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, TN, USA.
E Wesley
EW
Ely
Apologetics; Debate; Euthanasia; Physician-assisted death; Physician-assisted suicide