The problem of the possible rationality of suicide and the ethics of physician-assisted suicide

Opponents of the legalization of physician assisted suicide (PAS) often claim that physicians must not give a helping hand to suicidal patients because (i) it is morally forbidden to help somebody to carry out an action which is inherently irrational and which will probably cause him severe harm, and (ii) the act of self-killing is necessarily irrational and self-harming. The article focuses on the second premise of this paternalistic argument against the moral permissibility of PAS and its legalization. First, it is shown that this premise can be understood in two ways, depending on whether the predicate “irrational” is taken to refer to a human being's lack of the capacity to decide and act rationally or irrationally, or to the property of the decision to end one's life. Whereas the first variant of the premise stating that all suicidal individuals lack the capacity to act rationally can only be verified or falsified by empirical studies, the second assumption is a normative one which only philosophy can deal with. Restated in another way, it says that is always rationally forbidden to kill oneself because the decision to end one's own life is necessarily irrational. The five arguments which have been brought forward to justify this claim are analyzed and criticized. It is argued that there is no valid argument for the necessary irrationality of suicide. Hence, the claim that PAS is morally forbidden and, therefore, ought not to be legalized cannot rest on that premise.