Intentionally terminating life (ITL) and doctors’ direct involvement

Abstract

Intentionally terminating life (ITL) is usually assumed to require a doctor to perform it. However, it does not. Two questions have been conflated. First, is it a moral good for society to facilitate people ending their lives, and if so, in what circumstances? And second, how and by whom is it to be done? If ITL becomes a medical responsibility, the profession changes to incorporate a new duty to end some people's lives. This is the most significant moral question in medicine. Because the political movement to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia is vocal, organized and well-funded, the first question may become redundant soon. The second will then be upon us without due consideration. This article clarifies several ethical confusions that could derail your analysis. You may favour the legalization of ITL without compunction, oppose it in any form, or you may favour ITL but see it as safe only if implemented separate from medicine. Our intention is that you engage with the moral reasoning and not the emotional polemic of this postmodern debate.