Rawlsian reasoning about fairness at the end of life

Abstract

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to discuss end-of-life care in the context of Rawls’ and Daniels’ philosophy of justice. The study is based on an empirical survey of Swedish physicians who were asked whether they would want the option of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) for themselves (hereafter called own preferences), what are their attitudes towards PAS in general and whether they were prepared to prescribe PAS drugs to eligible patients. The question is to what extent the physicians’ answers are impartial and consistent in a Rawlsian sense.MethodsThe underlying indicator was the physicians’ own preferences. Kappa score inter-rater agreement was measured between that response and that same physician’s general attitude towards allowing PAS and preparedness to prescribe PAS drugs. The coherence of provided comments and arguments were analysed using content analysis.ResultsPalliative care physicians are the least willing to offer PAS, and surgeons and psychiatrist the most willing. There is a discrepancy between physicians’ general attitudes about allowing PAS, their own wishes to be offered PAS at the end of life and the concrete action of prescribing PAS drugs. Arguments given for not prescribing PAS by those in favour of PAS are seemingly but not truly inconsistent.ConclusionsThose supporting PAS provided impartial and consistent arguments for their stances in a Rawlsian sense, while those against PAS provided partial arguments. Two specialties, psychiatrists and palliative care physicians, were coherent in their reasoning about PAS for themselves and their willingness to prescribe the needed drugs.