Where Does Opposition Come From?

Taking a look at the rebuttals given by those who oppose the practice of Physician-Assisted Suicide, now abbreviated as P-AS.

In the 1997 case regarding P-AS and the Supreme Court, the ruling left the legality of the act to be a state's decision. Oregon was quick to adopt the practice just three years later, and now there are seven more states, including Washington D.C., that are currently following suit or are in the beginnings. Out of 50 states, this number seems a little low. Why is that? What is the heart of the problem for most opposing opinions?

AMA Journal of Ethics has posted two reasons provided by opposing viewpoints from multiple states; 1. the legality of P-AS will create pressure on the terminal patients who fear their lives are burdensome and 2. it simply goes against the Code of Medical Ethics.

However, the legality of this practice can highlight what is ethical for physicians; this law isn't the new standard, it isn't what physicians are forced to do, but what they are allowed to do. Any physician in a legalized state can freely reject involvement in the practice. With this in mind, I genuinely believe this boils down to a debate around "well I don't like it and that's that."

Regarding the code of ethics, I also believe that is open to interpretation. "Do no harm," but is allowing a patient to live in a way they don't wish for considered harmless?