
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


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
By The Free Press4.6
84088,408 ratings
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

26,276 Listeners

2,268 Listeners

2,887 Listeners

41 Listeners

5,173 Listeners

609 Listeners

3,828 Listeners

460 Listeners

1,223 Listeners

3,242 Listeners

1,072 Listeners

12,031 Listeners

448 Listeners

1,108 Listeners

923 Listeners

688 Listeners