AMA Reaffirms Opposition to Physician-Assisted Suicide
Recently the American Medical Association (AMA) once again took a firm stand against physician-assisted suicide (PAS), reaffirming a position it has held for decades. While the practice has been legalized in a growing number of U.S. jurisdictions, the AMA continues to argue that PAS is incompatible with the physician’s role and poses significant risks to both patients and society.
A Healer’s Role vs. Hastening Death
The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is clear: physician-assisted suicide is “fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as a healer.” Physicians are entrusted with preserving life, relieving suffering, and supporting patients and families through some of life’s most vulnerable moments. The AMA believes that turning to PAS compromises that trust and undermines the foundational ethic of healing.
Societal Risks and Unintended Consequences
One of the central reasons the AMA maintains its opposition is the broader societal impact. The organization argues that PAS is “difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.” Loopholes in legislation, unreliable oversight, and the potential for coercion or abuse raise concerns that the most vulnerable—people with disabilities, the elderly, and those with limited access to healthcare—could be placed at risk. The AMA warns that what begins as a narrowly framed option for the terminally ill can expand into a practice with dangerous consequences for society at large.
Meeting Patients’ Needs Without PAS
The AMA emphasizes that requests for PAS are not simply about a wish to die—they are signals of unmet needs. Whether a patient is experiencing unmanaged pain, fear of being a burden, loneliness, or existential distress, the organization insists that the appropriate response is not lethal drugs but better care.
Instead of facilitating death, physicians should:
Provide comfort care and effective pain management.
Offer emotional and spiritual support through counseling, pastoral care, or community resources.
Respect patient autonomy by honoring advance care planning and personal values.
Ensure access to hospice and palliative care, which are designed to affirm dignity and relieve suffering at the end of life.
In short, the AMA sees the request for PAS as an opportunity for deeper evaluation and intervention—not as justification for ending a life.
Rejecting Euphemisms
Another notable development in 2025 was the AMA’s clarification on terminology. The Board of Trustees rejected terms like “Medical Aid in Dying” (MAID), arguing that such language is misleading. Euphemisms, the AMA says, blur the line between PAS and legitimate forms of palliative care, making it harder for physicians, patients, and policymakers to navigate ethical questions with clarity. Instead, the AMA insists on direct, unambiguous terms that distinguish between end-of-life comfort care and assisted suicide.
A Call to Reinvest in Care
At a time when PAS continues to spread through legislation across the U.S., the AMA’s reaffirmed opposition is a reminder of the profession’s deeper calling. Physicians, the organization maintains, should not be placed in the role of ending life but in the role of alleviating suffering and walking alongside patients through the most difficult seasons of illness.
The AMA’s stance highlights a critical truth: end-of-life conversations are not simply about death, but about how we live, how we care for one another, and how society safeguards its most vulnerable members. Rather than turning to PAS as a solution, the AMA urges a reinvestment in hospice, palliative care, and the human connections that bring dignity, meaning, and comfort at life’s end.