Physician-Assisted Suicide: Dr. Jack Kevorkian and St. Thomas Aquinas

The physician assisted suicide predicament is seen in an historical context. 

During the 1990s, Dr. Jack Kevorkian fulfilled an unmet need in American medicine and society, euthanizing patients who felt that death was the only solution to their suffering.

Before being sent to prison, he “assisted” in the deaths of 130 people. He euthanized his “patients” with devices he named the “Thanatron” (from the Greek “thanatos,” meaning death) and the “Mercitron.” These contraptions allowed his patients to ‘self-administer’ IV barbiturates followed by IV potassium or inhaled carbon monoxide. After four trials, he was convicted of manslaughter. When sentenced, Dr. Kevorkian told the court, “dying is not a crime.”

Seven hundred years before the “Thanatron,” St. Thomas Aquinas, a 13th-century Dominican monk, wrote his masterpiece, Summa Theologica, which addressed the philosophical needs of the medieval church and society. Foremost among his achievements was his ethical doctrine called “The Principle of Double Effect.” Briefly, this simply states that if your intention is for good, but harm occurs, you are not liable for the harm as your intention was to achieve a good. It is not murder if a patient with intractable pain from metastatic cancer dies from narcotics-induced respiratory failure if the intent was to relieve their pain. Aquinas’s writings on what is called “intentionality,” although more than seven centuries old, remain the ethical underpinnings for comfort care of patients at the end of life.  

So, what does a medical doctor who was dubbed “Dr. Death” have in common with a Dominican friar who was called “Doctor Angelicus?”

There are interesting parallels. Kevorkian’s euthanasia reign was considered heretical by almost all physicians in the mid-1990s. Aquinas was reviled for several decades in the High Middle Ages as a heretic for being an Aristotelian, demonized by a church steeped in Neo-Platonism. The Angelic Doctor’s reputation was rehabilitated in the late medieval period, and his writings remain fundamental to Catholic theology.

Dr. Death has had no similar restoration of reputation. But the advocacy for physician-assisted suicide (PAS) has grown significantly in the 20 years after Kevorkian’s imprisonment.

Once illegal in all states, PAS is now legal in seven states, containing one-sixth of America’s population. In the remaining 43 states, it is either illegal or “legally uncertain.” Several states are considering its legalization.

Although Kevorkian and Aquinas are gone, PAS is very much alive. Although it is becoming increasingly legal, it is also becoming increasingly controversial. Physicians, courts, and legislators continue to debate it. Medical journals over the years have spilled a lot of real and electronic ink on the topic. The latest spillage was in the September 2017 issue of The Annals of Internal Medicine, a widely respected and widely read medical journal published by the American College of Physicians (ACP).

The ACP issued a position paper buttressed by 81 references taking the position that based on “substantial ethics,” it could not support the legalization of PAS. The ACP expressed grave concerns that legalizing PAS would have deleterious results, affecting trust in the physician-patient relationship and “fundamentally alter(ing) the physician’s role in society.” The paper is well-researched, well-written, and well-argued. It is also free to non-subscribers at

While this position paper took one side of the argument, however, the ACP published three accompanying articles providing arguments for and against PAS.

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Timothy Quill, a PAS advocate, expressed concern over “ACP’s rigid opposition” to PAS and argued for the need to continue “to debate the ethical and moral implications of permitting or prohibiting potential life-ending medical practices.” A second editorial expressed an opposite concern, opining that PAS was a “euphemism” that serves only to make “a distasteful subject palatable.” Lastly, in a special article Oregon’s 20-year experience with its “Death with Dignity Act” (DWDA) was detailed.

In their journal, the ACP balanced four articles, two for PAS and two against. However, these were not just two “pro” and two “con” articles; in fact, there was a lot of overlapping “pro” among the four articles. Specifically, all the authors, no matter their position on PAS, emphasized the need to compassionately and completely as possible relieve the anguish of the dying. Both sides agreed that when taking steps either to allow one to die or taking steps to cause one to die, rigorous adherence to medical ethics is paramount.  However, they disagree about what is ethical. Opponents of PAS consider it to be “harm,” and feel that patient autonomy does not allow the choice of PAS to end suffering, while proponents of PAS take the opposite stance.

Those who find PAS unacceptable are guided by Aquinas’s theory of double intent to aggressively relieve pain and suffering. Those for whom PAS is an option are guided by Aquinas, too, however – but only to a point. They believe there is a point in the spectrum of suffering at the end of life at which you can go beyond Aquinas’s double intent and have a single intent – to end a life.

Practitioners of PAS, however, are not 21st century Jack Kevorkians, who in the 1990s ignored all the standard standards of end-of life care – he did not screen for depression, did not screen for psychopathology, and did not attempt to maximize relief of suffering before turning on his Thanatron. Where it is legal, PAS is surrounded by safeguards to prevent its misuse.

So we have a PAS predicament. In some states it is legal, in most states it is not. Some compassionate physicians believe it is ethical, other compassionate physicians believe it is not. Some feel it is a proper role for a doctor to cause a patient to die, others feel it is not. But both sides acknowledge the absolute obligation to relieve the suffering of patients at the end of their lives.

Why should you care? Because if you are reading this, you are going to die. Some of us will die suddenly, some softly in a slumber, others violently in a trauma. Most of us, however, will watch our death approach like a black hole invading our universe. And like a black hole, the closer we get to it, the more it will affect us physically, emotionally, and spiritually – causing us to suffer. It will pull at us, it will distort us, and it will pull away bits of us until finally what is left of us is perched on its rim, knowing we must go in.

Both sides of the PAS quandary want to do everything possible to alleviate the pain of those on the edge of their death. Those who oppose PAS see their role as doing all that is humanly possible to relieve suffering as patients slip into the end of living. Those who endorse PAS see their role as doing all that is humanly possible to relieve suffering – but, if necessary, to gently push such patients into their end. 

Suicide, whether self-inflicted or physician-assisted, is an act of hopelessness: the loss of hope that pain can be relieved, that meaning in life can be restored, that suffering can be stopped. It is the loss of hope that being alive is better than being dead. But what if hopelessness could be relieved? What if medicine treated suffering like it treats ischemic heart disease? What if pain in a dying body got the same treatment and respect that pain in a beating heart gets? What if the same resources were put into palliative care as are put into cardiology? What if PAC is a sign of the need for more widely available, earlier, and more aggressive palliative care?

More palliative care couldn’t hurt. In fact, it could a lot less hurt.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related Stories

Leave a Reply

Please log in to your account to comment on this article.

Featured Webcasts

Revolutionize Case Management and Revenue Cycle Team Collaboration to Improve Patient and Financial Outcomes

Revolutionize Case Management and Revenue Cycle Team Collaboration to Improve Patient and Financial Outcomes

Unlock the keys to bridging the clinical-finance disconnect by transforming your approach to revenue cycle collaboration for superior patient care and financial prosperity!

Join Dr. Ronald Hirsch as he delves into the pivotal connection between case management, utilization review, and hospital revenue cycles, unveiling strategies to enhance communication and align goals effectively. Discover how to overcome hidden challenges hindering seamless collaboration and gain insights imperative for success

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
December 7, 2023
Mastering the Two-Midnight Rule: Keys to Navigating Short-Stay Admissions with Confidence

Mastering the Two-Midnight Rule: Keys to Navigating Short-Stay Admissions with Confidence

The CMS Two-Midnight Rule and short-stay audits are here to stay, impacting inpatient and outpatient admissions, ASC procedures, and Medicare Parts C & D. New for 2024, the Two-Midnight Rule applies to Medicare Advantage patients, requiring differentiation between Medicare plans affecting Case Managers, Utilization Review, and operational processes and knowledge of a vital distinction between these patients that influences post-discharge medical reviews and compliance risk. Join Michael G. Calahan for a comprehensive webcast covering federal laws for all admission processes. Gain the knowledge needed to navigate audits effectively and optimize patient access points, personnel, and compliance strategies. Learn Two-Midnight Rule essentials, Medicare Advantage implications, and compliance best practices. Discover operational insights for short-stay admissions, outpatient observation, and the ever-changing Inpatient-Only Listing.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
September 19, 2023
Unlocking Clinical Documentation Excellence: Empowering CDISs & Coders

Unlocking Clinical Documentation Excellence: How to Engage the Provider

Uncover effective techniques to foster provider understanding of CDI, empower CDISs and coders to customize their queries for enhanced effectiveness, and learn to engage adult learners, leveraging their experiences for superior learning outcomes. Elevate your CDI expertise, leading to fewer coding errors, reduced claim denials, and minimized audit issues.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
December 14, 2023
Coding for Spinal Procedures: A 2-Part Webcast Series

Coding for Spinal Procedures: A 2-Part Webcast Series

This exclusive ICD10monitor webcast series will help you acquire the critical knowledge you need to completely and accurately assign ICD-10-PCS and CPT® codes for spinal fusion and other common spinal procedures.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
October 26, 2023
Inpatient Spinal Fusions: Mastering Anatomy, Coding and Documentation

Inpatient Spinal Fusions: Mastering Anatomy, Coding and Documentation

During this exclusive ICD10monitor webcast, inpatient coders will gain a profound understanding of prevalent spinal procedures. They’ll delve into the intricate anatomy, grasp the purpose and method behind these procedures, uncover essential elements within physician documentation, and receive expert guidance, step by step, on constructing accurate ICD-10-PCS codes. It’s the key to enhancing their expertise and ensuring coding precision.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
October 26, 2023

Trending News