,PLS3701 ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1
DUE DATE 10 APRIL 2026
UNIQUE NUMBER: 267751
ANSWER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS
Biomedical Ethics
Do you think that euthanasia in the form of physician assistance in dying is ethically
different from letting a patient die by withdrawing treatment or life-support? Write an essay
in which you answer this question. Provide reasons for your argument.
Introduction
Biomedical ethics is concerned with some of the most complex and emotionally charged
questions in healthcare, particularly those involving life and death. One of the most
contentious debates is whether euthanasia, specifically physician-assisted dying, is ethically
different from withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment. Both practices may
ultimately lead to the death of a patient, often in circumstances involving terminal illness,
severe suffering, or irreversible medical conditions. However, despite the similar outcomes,
the ethical evaluation of these practices remains deeply divided among philosophers,
healthcare professionals, and legal systems.
This essay argues that euthanasia is ethically different from withdrawing life-sustaining
treatment. While both practices may be grounded in compassion and respect for patient
autonomy, they differ significantly in terms of intention, causation, moral responsibility, and
ethical justification. By analysing key ethical principles such as autonomy, beneficence, non-
maleficence, and the doctrine of double effect, this essay demonstrates that these distinctions
are morally meaningful and should not be ignored. Although some scholars argue that there
is no real difference between killing and letting die, this essay maintains that the distinction
remains ethically significant.
, Defining Euthanasia and Withdrawing Treatment
Euthanasia can be broadly defined as the intentional act of ending a patient’s life to relieve
suffering. In the context of physician-assisted dying, a healthcare professional either directly
administers a lethal substance or provides the means for the patient to do so themselves
(Beauchamp and Childress, 2019). Euthanasia is therefore an active intervention aimed
specifically at causing death.
On the other hand, withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment refers to the
decision to stop or not initiate medical interventions such as ventilators, dialysis, artificial
nutrition, or cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In such cases, the patient’s death results from the
underlying disease or condition rather than from a direct act intended to end life (Gillon,
1994).
The distinction between these two practices is often framed as the difference between
“killing” and “letting die.” While euthanasia involves an active step to end life, withdrawing
treatment allows the natural course of illness to proceed. This conceptual difference forms
the foundation of the ethical debate.
Intention and Moral Purpose
One of the most important ethical differences between euthanasia and withdrawing life-
sustaining treatment lies in the intention behind the action. Intention plays a crucial role in
moral reasoning, particularly in healthcare ethics.
In euthanasia, the primary intention is to cause the patient’s death in order to relieve
suffering. The act itself—administering a lethal injection or providing life-ending
medication—is designed to bring about death. The relief of suffering is achieved through the
deliberate ending of life.
In contrast, when life-sustaining treatment is withdrawn, the intention is not necessarily to
cause death but rather to respect the patient’s wishes or to avoid prolonging suffering through
DUE DATE 10 APRIL 2026
UNIQUE NUMBER: 267751
ANSWER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS
Biomedical Ethics
Do you think that euthanasia in the form of physician assistance in dying is ethically
different from letting a patient die by withdrawing treatment or life-support? Write an essay
in which you answer this question. Provide reasons for your argument.
Introduction
Biomedical ethics is concerned with some of the most complex and emotionally charged
questions in healthcare, particularly those involving life and death. One of the most
contentious debates is whether euthanasia, specifically physician-assisted dying, is ethically
different from withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment. Both practices may
ultimately lead to the death of a patient, often in circumstances involving terminal illness,
severe suffering, or irreversible medical conditions. However, despite the similar outcomes,
the ethical evaluation of these practices remains deeply divided among philosophers,
healthcare professionals, and legal systems.
This essay argues that euthanasia is ethically different from withdrawing life-sustaining
treatment. While both practices may be grounded in compassion and respect for patient
autonomy, they differ significantly in terms of intention, causation, moral responsibility, and
ethical justification. By analysing key ethical principles such as autonomy, beneficence, non-
maleficence, and the doctrine of double effect, this essay demonstrates that these distinctions
are morally meaningful and should not be ignored. Although some scholars argue that there
is no real difference between killing and letting die, this essay maintains that the distinction
remains ethically significant.
, Defining Euthanasia and Withdrawing Treatment
Euthanasia can be broadly defined as the intentional act of ending a patient’s life to relieve
suffering. In the context of physician-assisted dying, a healthcare professional either directly
administers a lethal substance or provides the means for the patient to do so themselves
(Beauchamp and Childress, 2019). Euthanasia is therefore an active intervention aimed
specifically at causing death.
On the other hand, withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment refers to the
decision to stop or not initiate medical interventions such as ventilators, dialysis, artificial
nutrition, or cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In such cases, the patient’s death results from the
underlying disease or condition rather than from a direct act intended to end life (Gillon,
1994).
The distinction between these two practices is often framed as the difference between
“killing” and “letting die.” While euthanasia involves an active step to end life, withdrawing
treatment allows the natural course of illness to proceed. This conceptual difference forms
the foundation of the ethical debate.
Intention and Moral Purpose
One of the most important ethical differences between euthanasia and withdrawing life-
sustaining treatment lies in the intention behind the action. Intention plays a crucial role in
moral reasoning, particularly in healthcare ethics.
In euthanasia, the primary intention is to cause the patient’s death in order to relieve
suffering. The act itself—administering a lethal injection or providing life-ending
medication—is designed to bring about death. The relief of suffering is achieved through the
deliberate ending of life.
In contrast, when life-sustaining treatment is withdrawn, the intention is not necessarily to
cause death but rather to respect the patient’s wishes or to avoid prolonging suffering through
