Physician Assisted Suicide

 In the medical field, medical professionals face ethical dilemmas where any of the four pillars (autonomy, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence) can conflict between organizational, personal, and patient goals. One example of an ethical dilemma professionals face deals with physician assisted suicide (PAS). Different from euthanasia, PAS deals with patients that are conscious and aware of their situations and surroundings making the distinctive decision to end their lives. In the case of euthanasia, the patient being euthanized has no knowledge or contribution to the decision being made. PAS is an ethical dilemma because it goes against the pillar of non-maleficence but opposition to PAS could cause more nonconsensual pain and suffering for a patient to possibly lead to the same ending, death of the patient. This removal of the patient's choice of death conflicts with the pillar of autonomy and could also conflict with the patient's justice. In a case where the patient has a terminal illness, refusal of PAS prolongs the suffering of the patient to still ultimately lead to death. From a patient perspective this is unjust and controlling. On the other hand, a family involved with the patient could see PAS as maleficence and unjust as they feel they have the right to be a part of the decision as the patient's kin. Medical professionals face this ethical dilemma as they have to consider the patient's needs, the family's needs, and their own moral stances. As PAS is assisted suicide, medical professionals could feel as if they are providing mercy from extended suffering for the patient but professionals could feel as if they are physically taking a life going against the pillars of beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.