PLS3701
ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1 2025
UNIQUE NO. 872216
DUE DATE: 29 APRIL 2025
, PLS3701
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Unique Number:
Due Date: 29 April 2025
Theoretical and Applied Ethics
TOPIC 1
Is Physician-Assisted Dying Ethically Distinct from Withdrawing Life-Sustaining
Treatment?
Introduction
Advances in modern medicine have extended the possibilities for sustaining human life
far beyond what was historically imaginable. Yet, these advances also raise profound
ethical dilemmas at the end of life, particularly concerning the permissibility of physician-
assisted dying (PAD) and the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. The ethical
distinction between these two practices remains heavily debated among bioethicists,
physicians, and legal scholars. Central to the debate are the ethical principles of
autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence. This essay argues that although PAD
and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment may differ in action and intent, ethically, they
are not distinct when viewed through the lens of patient autonomy and the ethical
imperative to alleviate suffering. By analyzing philosophical arguments, such as those
by James Rachels and Daniel Callahan, and reflecting on real-world case studies like
the Terri Schiavo case and Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, this essay will demonstrate
that the supposed ethical distinction between PAD and withdrawing treatment ultimately
collapses under critical scrutiny.
, Definitions and Conceptual Clarifications
Physician-assisted dying (PAD) involves a physician providing a competent, terminally
ill patient with the means to end their own life, typically through a prescription for a lethal
dose of medication (Quill, 1991). By contrast, withdrawing life-sustaining treatment
refers to the cessation of medical interventions, such as mechanical ventilation or
artificial nutrition and hydration, that are keeping a patient alive (Beauchamp &
Childress, 2019). While PAD entails an active measure to cause death, withdrawing
treatment allows death to occur from the underlying illness. Critics often argue that this
difference in action constitutes an ethical distinction. However, defenders of PAD argue
that both practices aim to respect patient autonomy and relieve suffering, challenging
the notion that they are ethically distinct.
Ethical Principles at Stake
Autonomy
Autonomy, the right of individuals to make informed decisions about their own lives and
bodies, is a foundational principle in biomedical ethics (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).
Both PAD and withdrawing treatment fundamentally serve to uphold patient autonomy.
In PAD, the patient consciously chooses to end their life to escape unbearable suffering.
Similarly, withdrawing treatment reflects the patient’s decision to refuse medical
interventions they perceive as burdensome or futile.
Respect for autonomy implies that the patient's choice must be honored, provided they
are competent and fully informed. Denying PAD while permitting withdrawal of treatment
seems inconsistent if the ethical basis is the respect for the patient's autonomous
decision. If we accept that a competent patient has the right to refuse treatment and
thus hasten death, consistency demands accepting their choice to seek PAD under
similar conditions.
Beneficence
ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1 2025
UNIQUE NO. 872216
DUE DATE: 29 APRIL 2025
, PLS3701
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Unique Number:
Due Date: 29 April 2025
Theoretical and Applied Ethics
TOPIC 1
Is Physician-Assisted Dying Ethically Distinct from Withdrawing Life-Sustaining
Treatment?
Introduction
Advances in modern medicine have extended the possibilities for sustaining human life
far beyond what was historically imaginable. Yet, these advances also raise profound
ethical dilemmas at the end of life, particularly concerning the permissibility of physician-
assisted dying (PAD) and the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. The ethical
distinction between these two practices remains heavily debated among bioethicists,
physicians, and legal scholars. Central to the debate are the ethical principles of
autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence. This essay argues that although PAD
and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment may differ in action and intent, ethically, they
are not distinct when viewed through the lens of patient autonomy and the ethical
imperative to alleviate suffering. By analyzing philosophical arguments, such as those
by James Rachels and Daniel Callahan, and reflecting on real-world case studies like
the Terri Schiavo case and Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, this essay will demonstrate
that the supposed ethical distinction between PAD and withdrawing treatment ultimately
collapses under critical scrutiny.
, Definitions and Conceptual Clarifications
Physician-assisted dying (PAD) involves a physician providing a competent, terminally
ill patient with the means to end their own life, typically through a prescription for a lethal
dose of medication (Quill, 1991). By contrast, withdrawing life-sustaining treatment
refers to the cessation of medical interventions, such as mechanical ventilation or
artificial nutrition and hydration, that are keeping a patient alive (Beauchamp &
Childress, 2019). While PAD entails an active measure to cause death, withdrawing
treatment allows death to occur from the underlying illness. Critics often argue that this
difference in action constitutes an ethical distinction. However, defenders of PAD argue
that both practices aim to respect patient autonomy and relieve suffering, challenging
the notion that they are ethically distinct.
Ethical Principles at Stake
Autonomy
Autonomy, the right of individuals to make informed decisions about their own lives and
bodies, is a foundational principle in biomedical ethics (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).
Both PAD and withdrawing treatment fundamentally serve to uphold patient autonomy.
In PAD, the patient consciously chooses to end their life to escape unbearable suffering.
Similarly, withdrawing treatment reflects the patient’s decision to refuse medical
interventions they perceive as burdensome or futile.
Respect for autonomy implies that the patient's choice must be honored, provided they
are competent and fully informed. Denying PAD while permitting withdrawal of treatment
seems inconsistent if the ethical basis is the respect for the patient's autonomous
decision. If we accept that a competent patient has the right to refuse treatment and
thus hasten death, consistency demands accepting their choice to seek PAD under
similar conditions.
Beneficence
