Can the case for legalised physician-assisted dying withstand objections based on sanctity of life and the doctor-patient relationship?

The debate around physician assisted dying (PAD) is a long running one, and those who oppose it do so for wide range of reasons. This paper will focus on two of the most commonly voiced objections; that it would mean abandoning the essential sanctity of life principle and that it would threaten the doctor/patient relationship of trust and beneficence. Following an examination of the law’s current relationship with the sanctity of life principle it will be concluded while sanctity of life remains essential in the eyes of the law, it is not absolute. Rather, in reaching any decision this principle must be balanced against other essential principles, especially autonomy. Thus, PAD could be legalised without the need to ‘abandon’ this principle. As such, this argument alone is insufficient to preclude the legalisation of PAD.

It will then be argued that while maintaining the doctor/patient relationship of trust and beneficence is clearly an essential goal, legalising PAD would likely strengthen, rather than undermine this relationship as it would promote a culture of openness, honesty and trust.