The Price of "Dignity:" Physician-Assisted Suicide Poses Ethical and Social Risks
The debate over physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia continues to spark heated discussions in New Hampshire. Proponents argue that these practices offer individuals the right to decide how and when they die. Yet, behind this seemingly compassionate narrative lies a web of ethical and societal challenges that demand closer scrutiny.
At its core, physician-assisted suicide may seem like a compassionate response, but the implications of legalizing such acts reach far beyond individual autonomy. While PAS supporters advocate for the "right to die," many overlook the broader, systemic consequences of normalizing this practice.
A Slippery Slope
Legalizing PAS risks diverting both focus and funding away from palliative care—a critical resource designed to ease suffering for terminally ill patients. Effective palliative care provides symptom relief, emotional support, and a dignified quality of life. If PAS were to become an option, the incentive to improve and expand palliative care services may diminish, leaving vulnerable patients with fewer options for compassionate, life-affirming care.
Disproportionate Impact on Marginalized Communities
The economic disparities in the U.S. healthcare system add another troubling dimension to this debate. For many individuals, particularly people of color, PAS could become a coerced choice rather than a voluntary one. These communities already face higher rates of chronic illnesses, inadequate access to healthcare, and financial burdens from medical expenses. Introducing PAS as a cheaper alternative to expensive treatments might inadvertently pressure marginalized individuals to choose death to avoid placing financial strain on their families.
Additionally, the historical mistreatment of communities of color in medical research, such as the Tuskegee Study and the exploitation of Henrietta Lacks, has sown deep distrust in the healthcare system. Legalizing PAS could exacerbate this distrust, leaving patients fearful that doctors might prioritize cost-cutting over life-preserving care.
Approval for physician-assisted suicide (PAS) laws varies significantly by race and ethnicity in the United States. When asked whether they approve of “laws to allow doctor-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients,” only 32 percent of Latino respondents and 29 percent of Black respondents agreed. This disparity extends even within religious communities, where 33 percent of Hispanic Catholics approved of PAS laws .
Often the privileged white people behind these laws do not see low-income Americans who are impacted. These groups worry about being undervalued or treated without dignity in a system influenced by racial bias where systemic prejudice could lead to its misuse and erode trust in healthcare providers.
Physician-assisted suicide, in practice, involves a doctor prescribing life-ending medication that a patient chooses to take. While framed as a compassionate option, PAS is often less expensive than traditional end-of-life care—something health insurers are keenly aware of. For instance, the Oregon Health Plan covers assisted suicide but denies coverage for some newer, potentially life-saving treatments like Tarceva chemotherapy.
Who Really Benefits?
Proponents of PAS often frame it as an option for everyone, but data shows that most individuals who push for assisted suicide are well-educated, affluent, and white. Meanwhile, marginalized communities remain at risk of being coerced by systemic inequalities into a choice that benefits insurers and healthcare institutions more than patients themselves.
A Better Path Forward
Rather than expanding access to PAS, efforts should focus on addressing the root causes of suffering that lead people to consider ending their lives. This includes:
Investing in Palliative Care: Ensuring every patient has access to comprehensive, affordable care that alleviates pain and enhances their quality of life.
Reducing Healthcare Costs: Lowering the financial burden of medical treatment so that no one feels forced into PAS for economic reasons.
Restoring Trust in Medicine: Addressing systemic racism and inequality within the healthcare system to rebuild trust among marginalized populations.
Until these systemic issues are addressed, legalizing physician-assisted suicide poses a dangerous precedent that could exacerbate inequalities and undermine the dignity it claims to uphold. Fear of PAS among historically marginalized communities reflects broader issues of systemic inequity, economic incentive, and racial prejudice in American healthcare. Until these systemic issues are addressed, skepticism toward PAS will persist, underscoring the need for a healthcare system that values and supports all lives equally. True compassion means fighting for a healthcare system where every life is valued and supported—without making death the most accessible option.