Analogical Arguments on Behalf and in Defense of Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS)

Author ORC ID: 0009-0008-8659-6939 This work was conducted and written independently by the author without external funding or significant collaboration.

May 21, 2026

Questions may be directed below:

Abstract

This paper uses analogical reasoning to argue that physician-assisted suicide (PAS) should be a legal, institutionalized option for all mentally competent adults. The argument focuses on the purest aspect of Kantian bodily autonomy and public harm reduction. By comparing PAS to three established practices, the legal right to refuse medical treatment, institutional harm-reduction programs, and animal euthanasia; this paper shows that legalizing PAS is logically consistent with our current ethical standards.

Keywords: physician-assisted suicide, medical assistance in dying (MAID), bodily autonomy, analogical reasoning, harm reduction, self-determination, Kantian ethics

Analogical Argument on Behalf and in Defense of Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS)

The conversation around suicide is already heavily stigmatized, often forcing individuals to navigate existential suffering completely and entirely alone. This paper argues that physician-assisted suicide (PAS) should be legally available to all mentally competent adults, regardless of whether they have a terminal physical illness or not. This paper also stipulates that suicidal ideation is not proper justification alone to declare an individual as mentally incompetent. Prohibiting PAS does not preserve life and simply serves to drive the act into the individual’s homes, oftentimes maximizing both physical and mental trauma for the actor and the discoverer alike. By drawing analogies to our accepted rights to refuse medical care, the logic of public harm-reduction programs, and the mercy we show to animals, we can easily see that institutionalizing PAS is perhaps one of the most rational and compassionate paths forward.

Autonomy

We already accept this principle in medicine. A competent adult has absolute legal right to refuse life-saving treatment via a do not resuscitate (DNR) or by other legally binding notice. They are allowed to choose death, sometimes even an agonizingly painful one, over an unwanted existence. This first analogy compares PAS to the refusal of care. If society accepts the rational person’s choice to passively end life by rejecting the administration of medical treatment, it is logically inconsistent to deny that same person the right to actively end life using medicine. Both scenarios rely on the same exact premise, that the individual possesses full ownership and autonomy over their body.

Harm Reduction

My second analogy compares the institutionalization of PAS to public harm-reduction strategies such as safe injection sites. Leadership and societal decisionmakers alike already recognize that making drug use illegal does not stop addiction, but instead causes fatal overdoses in streets, back alleyways, or abandoned buildings. Safe sites bring the same behaviors into qualified hands, allowing professionals to provide medical oversight in an effort to prevent the worst possible outcomes related to the poor execution of the act. Similarly, institutionalizing PAS acts as an active harm-reduction tool. It provides a safe, medically regulated environment that prevents botched or violent suicides. It gives a person the ability to pass peacefully and additionally allows families an opportunity to say a proper, supported goodbye rather than being blindsided by the trauma of a “sudden” loss.

Suffering

Lastly, this paper’s third analogy compares PAS to the humane euthanasia of pets and beloved animals. When an animal’s quality of life deteriorates to a point of no return due to chronic pain, cognitive decline, or extreme distress; we, as their providers, do not force them to exist via institutionalization until their heart naturally stops. We are able to recognize or anthropomorphize that their subjective experience of suffering outweighs the fact that they are, biologically, still breathing and very much alive. It is a moral paradox that we offer and sometimes decide on this mercy for and on behalf of animals, yet we legally deny it to human beings. If an animal’s suffering warrants peaceful release, a rational human being who can clearly articulate their own existential or physical agony deserves at least this same level of compassion and mercy.

To prove the validity of these analogies, they must be evaluated based on four logical criteria: strength, similarities, diversity, and specificity.

Strength: The arguments are exceptionally resilient because the analogs are based on principles that society already universally accepts; patient rights, public safety, and mercy/utilitarianism.

Similarities: The analogies mirror the reality of PAS. In all the analogs, the focus is on a conscious choice between suffering and release, the mitigation of unnecessary trauma, and the involvement of a medical professional to ensure a humane outcome.
Diversity: The analogies draw on three entirely different aspects of ethics: constitutional law, sociology/public health, and animal humane euthanasia. The diversity of the analogs proves that the principles supporting PAS are not random nor standalone but can be found in many different aspects and rules already found in modern society.

Specificity: The analogs specifically match the conditions of the argument. They argue for competent decision-making and institutional oversight. The arguments rely mostly on the rational and well-informed choices of human adults, keeping logical parameters for deciding to end one’s life tight and relevant to its justifications.

Conclusion

If we truly value autonomy, public safety, and compassion, then our laws must reflect those values consistently. By comparing PAS to the right to refuse treatment, the logical arguments of harm reduction, and current humane practices of euthanasia, it becomes abundantly clear that restricting PAS causes far more suffering than it prevents. Institutionalizing physician-assisted suicide for competent adults is the only way to truly respect and honor the agency of the human mind.

References

American Veterinary Medical Association. (2020). AVMA guidelines for the euthanasia of animals: 2020 edition. https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/Guidelines-on-Euthanasia-2020.pdf

Knachel, M. (2017). Arguments from analogy. In Fundamental methods of logic. Humanities LibreTexts. https://human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Philosophy/Logic_and_Reasoning/Fundamental_Methods_of_Logic_(Knachel)/05%3A_Inductive_Logic_I_-_Analogical_and_Causal_Arguments/5.02%3A_Arguments_from_Analogy

Miller, B. L. (1981). Autonomy & the refusal of lifesaving treatment. The Hastings Center Report, 11(4), 22–28. https://bioethics.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/Shea%2C%20Miller%20-%20Autonomy%20and%20the%20Refusal%20of%20Lifesaving%20Treatment.pdf

National Harm Reduction Coalition. (n.d.). Principles of harm reduction. Retrieved May 17, 2026, from https://harmreduction.org/about-us/principles-of-harm-reduction/

Share DE DeGraw, Author/Poet/Artist

DE DeGraw, Author/Poet/Artist

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?