Time to legalise assisted dying?

Editor—The BMJ seems to accept the policy of neutrality towards physician assisted suicide, despite reported undemocratic voting at the annual representative meeting.¹

Tännsjö argues for euthanasia, not just physician assisted suicide.² He follows the modern trend to make decisions by what “feels comfortable” rather than by what is objectively right. He then looks for a suitable framework to justify his opinion. This seems to be in complete contradiction to the evidence based requirement of the rest of medicine.

The public fears over-burdensome treatment. We have a right to express our wishes, but we do not have automatic access to all we want. Even if we plan physician assisted suicide, we should be prepared for unexpected events—for example, an allergy reaction or vomiting up “the blue pill.”

The use of autonomy as a basis for ethics is flawed: it is mistakenly identified with freedom. One person's rights impact on others' duties—that is, doctors are being asked to hand a patient the means to kill himself or herself. Suicide has been de-criminalised, but it harms human nature. Physician assisted suicide could have far reaching implications on the family and society in general. Assistance would be contrary to the practice of doctors, who spend many surgery hours persuading people to step down from the window ledge. Physician assisted suicide proposes that we give in to their hopelessness and help them to jump comfortably.

Workload might be reduced but human richness would also be lost. Suffering can increase the insight and appreciation of the beauty of life. Some of the best artists and poets have been depressed, and we would never have had the Goons without Spike.

Let's leave the physician out of physician assisted suicide and say euthanologist. This would not endanger or destroy the doctor-patient relationship, and the funding would not come from an already tight healthcare budget.