•  
  •  
 

Abstract

The legalisation of medical assisted suicide (MAS) is a complex ethical issue at the intersection of autonomy, non-maleficence, and justice. This paper critically examines whether MAS should be legalised worldwide, evaluating ethical justifications, regulatory challenges, and societal risks. A primary argument in favour of MAS is patient autonomy, allowing individuals to make informed end-of-life decisions, particularly in cases of terminal illness and intractable suffering. MAS is also framed as a harm-reduction strategy, preventing patients from resorting to unsafe methods of suicide.

However, ethical concerns regarding coercion, socioeconomic disparities, and the "slippery slope" effect present significant opposition. Case studies from jurisdictions where MAS is legal reveal both the effectiveness of safeguardsand trends in eligibility expansion beyond initial frameworks, raising concerns about long-term regulatory integrity. This paper critically examines these issues and proposes a structured legalisation model incorporating strict eligibility criteria, mandatory psychological evaluations, and continuous oversight mechanisms.

Findings suggest that MAS can be ethically and legally integrated into healthcare systems if accompanied by three key safeguards: 1) robust regulatory oversight, 2) guaranteed palliative care access, and 3) continuous ethical reassessment. Legalisation should ensure that MAS remains a genuine choice rather than a response to inadequate healthcare access. A balanced framework—one that upholds patient rights while preventing systemic risks—is necessary for the ethical implementation of MAS.

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.