Should We Legalize Assisted Suicide?

72 snips

Dec 9, 2025

Guest

Lydia Dugdale

Guest

David Hoffman

David Hoffman, a healthcare attorney and bioethics professor, champions legal access to medical aid in dying (MAID) as a compassionate choice for terminal patients. In contrast, Dr. Lydia Dugdale, a physician and medical ethicist, warns about the risks for vulnerable populations and the potential erosion of the medical oath to do no harm. They delve into the implications of New York’s proposed MAID bill, vocational responsibilities, and the dangers of euphemisms in the conversation around assisted suicide, raising profound ethical questions.

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Transcript

Episode notes

INSIGHT

Words Shape The Ethical Debate

Terminology matters: calling MAID 'suicide' versus 'aid in dying' frames ethical and clinical responses.
Precise language helps direct appropriate protections and treatments for different patients.

INSIGHT

Terminal Patients Are Clinically Distinct

MAID patients are clinically distinct from conventional suicides because they have terminal diagnoses and seek control over timing and suffering.
Distinguishing terms matters legally, ethically, and clinically to tailor protections for different groups.

ADVICE

Remove Legal Impediments To Access

Remove legal barriers that prevent terminal patients from accessing safe, certain, and painless medications when clinically appropriate.
Use established statutory safeguards and clinical judgment rather than arbitrary prohibitions to allow access.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

One of the most complex medical, ethical, moral, and religious questions of our era is that of physician-assisted suicide—also known as Medical Aid in Dying, or MAID.

Eleven U.S. states and Washington, D.C. have legalized some form of MAID for terminally ill patients. And New York might join them.

Over the summer, a Medical Aid in Dying Act passed New York’s state legislature. It is now sitting on Governor Kathy Hochul’s desk as she decides whether to sign it into law.

Under the proposed New York bill, terminally ill adults with a prognosis of six months or less to live would be able to access a prescribed, self-administered life-ending medication.

Supporters argue that this is a compassionate option—one that can relieve people of immense pain and suffering, allowing patients to choose when and where they die, and to do so surrounded by loved ones.

Opponents see this as a violation of physicians’ fundamental oath to do no harm. They also worry that while access may begin narrowly, it could expand over time to include people seeking death for reasons other than terminal illness—such as mental suffering or simply a desire to stop living. Cases like this have already occurred in Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada, and Switzerland.

Rafaela Siewert sat down with two experts who see this topic very differently for a heated debate.

David Hoffman is a healthcare attorney, clinical ethicist, and professor of bioethics at Columbia University. He argues that hypothetical future abuses of MAID shouldn’t outweigh the needs of terminal patients who need this option now.

Dr. Lydia Dugdale is a physician, medical ethicist, and professor of medicine at Columbia University. In her view, legalizing this practice of physician-assisted suicide risks undermining the responsibilities of governments, medical systems, and families to care for the mentally ill, the poor, and the physically disabled. And she fears that the potential for excessively expanded access over time is too great.

We are among the many Americans who do not know what the right answer is. We see both sides—which is why grappling with the nuances of this subject is so important.

This is a debate you won’t want to miss.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices