Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Dec 20;92(4):747-750.
eCollection 2019 Dec.

Pros and Cons of Physician Aid in Dying

Affiliations
Review

Pros and Cons of Physician Aid in Dying

Lydia S Dugdale et al. Yale J Biol Med. .

Abstract

The question of a physician's involvement in aid in dying (or "assisted suicide") is being debated across the country. This article adopts no one position because its authors hold contrasting views. It aims instead to articulate the strongest arguments in favor of aid in dying and the strongest arguments opposed. It also addresses relevant terminology and reviews the history of its legalization in the United States.

Keywords: Aid in dying; Autonomy; Bioethics; Death; Dying; End of life; Ethics; Physician-assisted suicide; Suicide.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Opinions on caring for patients at the end of life. AMA Code of Medical Ethics, 2016. https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/default/files/media-browser/code-of-medic... Accessed April 30, 2019.
    1. Medical aid in dying is not assisted suicide. Compassion & Choices, 2016. https://www.compassionandchoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FS-Medic... Accessed January 19, 2017.
    1. Yuill K. Assisted Suicide: The liberal, humanist case against legalization. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015. p. 16.
    1. Medical assistance in dying. Government of Canada, 2017. http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/health-system-systeme-sante/services/e... Accessed April 30, 2019.
    1. Appel JM. A duty to kill? A duty to die? Rethinking the euthanasia controversy of 1906. Bull Hist Med. 2004;78(3):610–34. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources