Physician-assisted suicide is a topic that has been at the forefront of bioethics for many years and yet no real consensus has been reached on whether this right should be granted to all patients . Arguments can be made for both sides of the argument. For example, most proponents of physician-assisted suicide view it as ultimately a matter of patient autonomy and believe that rejecting physician-assisted suicide is merely another example of physician paternalism. However, it is naive to believe that physician-assisted suicide is only a matter of patient autonomy, because physician autonomy must also be considered. For this reason, among others, physician-assisted suicide should not be legalized. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay “Physician-Assisted Dying: Self-Determination Run Amok,” by Daniel Callahan, he explains that the idea of ​​euthanasia as a matter of patient self-determination is incorrect because responsibility is shared between the patient and the doctor (p.75). The same logic can easily be applied to physician-assisted suicide, because the only difference between providing a patient with the means to commit suicide and actually performing the procedure is semantics. While Callahan is quick to differentiate between euthanasia and letting die, asserting that the doctor is not culpable for the patient's death if the patient is simply allowed to die (p. 76). I would argue that in the case of giving a terminally ill patient chemicals to commit suicide, a doctor would be just as culpable as if he or she had personally administered the chemical. It is unfair to pressure doctors to help end the lives of patients they are sworn to protect. If physician-assisted suicide were legalized, it would directly conflict with everything doctors are sworn to uphold in the Hippocratic Oath. Violating the sanctity of a patient's life by helping them commit suicide would be in direct conflict with virtue ethics which emphasizes the importance of roles. Asking a doctor to betray his oath by helping a patient end his life prematurely would go completely against everything virtue ethics advocates. Callahan argues that physician-assisted suicide should not be legalized because doctors should only be concerned with preserving the health of patients (p. 79). It seems foolish to view Callahan's response as the sole responsibility of the physician, but it truly protects the interests of patients and physicians. The physician is freed from the burden of making important, unalterable decisions based on the patient's perceived mental or emotional suffering. The patient is also protected against a law that could lead to abuse at the expense of the patient. For example, Callahan discusses the case in the Netherlands where involuntary euthanasia took place, despite the law requiring explicit permission for euthanasia to be performed (p. 78). Although physician-assisted suicide is much more difficult to perform in involuntary patients because it requires the patient to take action to end their life, physician-assisted suicide can still occur. Involuntary physician-assisted suicide can occur if a doctor does not properly inform the patient that a prescribed treatment would result in their death. Therefore, the legalization of medically assisted suicide, which is often presented as a right.