Physician-assisted death is one of the most nuanced topics of discussion in American life. Although politically influenced, PAS can be categorized as an issue which people take sides on based on personal preference rather than ideology. 

PAS is defined as “suicide by a patient facilitated by means (such as a drug prescription) or by information (such as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent” . However, most often PAS is allowed or utilized as an end-of-life measure  for those suffering terminal illnesses. 

Physician-assisted suicide goes by many names, such as physician-assisted death and death by dignity. Regardless of how it is characterized, however, the procedure itself remains legal in ten states as of 2022. 

PAS is considered a very polarizing topic, specifically in terms of its purpose, technicality and those associated with the procedure. 

The main reasons patients or their families ask for it, according to a Canadian study, were loss of control and independence, loss of the ability to engage in pleasurable and meaningful activities, illness-related suffering (such as pain or nausea), and fear of further suffering. The majority of the patients in this trial had end-organ failure, cancer, or a neurological condition. However, the argument also extends to the financial burden of a terminal illness, claiming two thirds of terminally ill households experience financial stress. 

Plus, there is a logical aspect to the for-PAS side as well. Considering patients have the right to refuse medical treatment for what they believe is inevitable death, they should also be able to receive physician-assisted suicide. 

The medical world’s opinion also plays a role in pro-PAS arguments. Per Gallup polls, 60% of physicians believe that PAS should be legalized. Additionally, 69%  think it should be decriminalized as a practice.  Considering the people who administer PAS are the majority in favor, proponents believe that it should be a right given to people. 

However, the medical world is not unanimous in its view of physician-assisted suicide, specifically regarding the Hippocratic Oath, the oath of ethics that physicians are obligated to allow. The Hippocratic Oath takes a pro-life stance on physician-assisted suicide when it states, “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan.” Considering PAS is administered through a drug prescription, it is considered a lethal drug. 

In terms of PAS laws, opponents allege that these laws have dangerous loopholes. Plus, there is a growing concern of easier access suicide that goes beyond just PAS. Essentially, opponents claim that legalizing PAS can facilitate a culture of death that is difficult to stop when started. 

The slippery slope, in the eyes of the anti-PAS community, has already been taking place. This is in regard to how the private sector takes advantage of physician-assisted suicide, specifically insurance companies. In states that offer PAS, insurance companies have offered to administer suicide as opposed to life-saving treatments. Considering physician-assisted suicide is much cheaper than these life-saving treatments for the terminally ill, insurance companies will subsidize PAS and save themselves substantial amounts of money. However, the implication from anti-PAS advocates is that by only offering PAS, it essentially coerces a financially stressed person to embrace a culture of death. 

Physician-assisted death is an issue that has simply been pawned off to the states. However, in reality it deserves proper addressing with civil discourse from both sides. Considering its polarizing nature, the only way to come to a humane conclusion is through discussion and community.