Does Dying with Dignity Exist? Is Ending a Life Ever an Act of Mercy?

By: Crystal Kong and Chloe Cherng, High School Students

---

How can ending a life be legal and morally just?

This haunting question lies in the hearts of one of medicine’s largest ethical debates: assisted dying. Also known as medical physician-assisted suicide, where a physician administers the lethal dose to a consenting patient, ​​the practice allows terminally ill patients to choose to end their lives on their own terms.

The concept of physician-assisted death has been debated in the U.S. since at least the late 1800s. The modern right-to-die movement gained momentum in the 1970s and 1980s, with the founding of the Hemlock Society in 1980. Sequentially, assisted dying was first legally established in the United States by Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act in 1994. This law allows terminally ill, mentally competent adults to self-administer a lethal dose of medication prescribed by a physician. Since Oregon, other states have followed suit, including Washington, Vermont, California, and others. These laws marked a turning point in healthcare where death was recognized to be part of compassionate care; however, this has caused many tensions between compassion, control, and care. In this blog, we will explore the ethical, medical, and societal dimensions of assisted dying.

Ethical Considerations

The complexities of assisted dying can be examined through the lens of the ethical principles that guide healthcare professionals. Autonomy emphasizes a patient’s right to make informed decisions about their own body and life, and thus assisted dying supports a patient’s autonomy. It allows patients, especially those facing terminal illness, to choose a dignified and controlled death. Autonomy becomes ethically complicated when external pressures, such as emotional or financial burdens, influence a patient’s voluntary decision.

Beneficence supports alleviating suffering and promoting the well-being of patients. This can include respecting a request to end life when pain becomes unbearable. However, this conflicts with the principle of nonmaleficence, which is a duty to do no harm. Assisting in death could be interpreted as causing harm, even if done with the intent to end suffering.

Healthcare professionals must balance honoring patient autonomy and promoting well-being with their moral duty to protect and sanctify life.

The Debate

The debate over assisted dying centers on the tension between respecting individual autonomy and preserving medical and societal ethics. As previously discussed, advocates argue that allowing assisted dying honors a patient’s right to make their own decisions on their body and life. Additionally, they argue that it provides relief from unbearable suffering, allowing patients to maintain their dignity at the end of their lives.

On the other hand, opponents warn that legalization could undermine public trust in the medical profession and blur the line between providing care and causing harm. As of now, it is legal in some U.S. states and not on the federal level. There is concern that growing legalization could lead to potential coercion or misuse, as vulnerable individuals, such as the elderly or disabled, may feel pressure to end their lives to avoid burdening others mentally and financially. Moreover, legalizing assisted dying may divert attention and resources away from palliative care, as focus would be shifted from improving quality of life to ending life. Additionally, religious and cultural values often view life as sacred, objecting to assisted dying as it ends life.

Conclusion

Assisted dying remains one of medicine’s biggest tensions that intersects compassion for suffering with the duty to preserve life. While systems have implemented strict regulation of autonomy for the use of this practice, it can challenge public trust, potential coercion, diverts attention to palliative care, and cultural values. Whether one views assisted dying as mercy or moral misstep, it ultimately forces us to ask: what does it mean to live, and to die, with dignity and choice?