Daniel Sulmasy

The word ‘dignity’ arises continuously in the debate over euthanasia and assisted suicide, both in Europe and in North America. Unlike the phrases ‘autonomy’ and ‘slippery slope’, ‘dignity’ is used by those on both sides of the question. For example, the organizations most prominently associated with the campaign that culminated in the recent legalization of euthanasia in Belgium are the Association pour la Droit de Mourir dans la Dignité and Recht op Waardig Sterven. Yet when Belgium passed its euthanasia law, that nation’s Catholic bishops declared, “All this is opposed to the fundamental respect for human life that lies at the heart of a society based on human dignity”. Or, consider the fact that the legislation that legalized assisted suicide in the state of Oregon, U.S.A., was called the “Death with Dignity Act.” Yet opponents of assisted suicide in the United States, such as the Family Research Council, have declared that, “The idea of assisted suicide is a poison pill that kills the dignity of a precious human life”.Over and above differences in translation, the word ‘dignity’ cannot mean the same thing in all four of the preceding sentences. It cannot be the univocal basis of moral arguments both for and against euthanasia and assisted suicide. A better understanding of this word would therefore help to bring clarity and insight to the arguments about euthanasia and assisted suicide in Europe, North America, and throughout the world

The Rule of Double Effect has played an important role in bioethics, especially during the last fifty years. Its major application in bioethics has been in providing physicians who are opposed to euthanasia with a moral justification for using opioid analgesics in treating the pain of patients whose death might thereby be hastened. It has also prominently been applied to certain obstetric cases. The scope of application of double effect is actually much broader than medical ethics, extending to cover such topics as strategic bombing in warfare. This article, while general in theory, concentrates on its applications in medical ethics.

Pellegrino has argued that end-of-life decisions should be based upon the physician's assessment of the effectiveness of the treatment and the patient's assessment of its benefits and burdens. This would seem to imply that conditions for medical futility could be met either if there were a judgment of ineffectiveness, or if the patient were in a state in which he or she were incapable of a subjective judgment of the benefits and burdens of the treatment. I argue that a theory of futility according to Pellegrino would deny that latter but would permit some cases of the former. I call this the circumspect view. I show that Pellegrino would adopt the circumspect view because he would see the medical futility debate in the context of a system of medical ethics based firmly upon a philosophy of medicine. The circumspect view is challenged by those who would deny that one can distinguish objective from subjective medical judgments. I defend the circumspect view on the basis of a previously neglected aspect of the philosophy of medicine -- an examination of varieties of medical judgment. I then offer some practical applications of this theory in clinical practice.