# Compassion in the justification of physician-assisted dying: Gandhi’s non-violence vs. Aristotle’s virtues and vices

## TL;DR

The paper compares Gandhi's and Aristotle's views on compassion to determine if it can justify physician-assisted dying.

## Contribution

It offers a novel ethical analysis of physician-assisted dying through contrasting philosophical perspectives on compassion.

## Key findings

- Gandhi's view of compassion supports physician-assisted dying as a moral duty to relieve suffering.
- Aristotle's virtue ethics limits compassion to non-lethal means of alleviating suffering.
- The two philosophies lead to divergent conclusions about the ethical justification of assisted dying.

## Abstract

Compassion is an essential phenomenon in the therapeutic relationship, and some use it to justify physician-assisted dying practices. The value of compassion in the relationship between healthcare professionals and patients is undeniable. However, different approaches to its definition and scope can lead to distinct conclusions about the role of compassion in end-of-life interventions. In this context, the paper aims to compare Mahatma Gandhi’s and Aristotle’s views on compassion to explore whether it can be utilized to justify physician-assisted dying. Gandhi’s thoughts on compassion and Aristotle’s standpoint on virtues and vices demonstrate that Gandhi evaluates this concept as a moral duty to relieve intractable suffering, whereas Aristotle relies on balancing all virtues through relevant deficiencies and excesses. Therefore, even though Gandhi’s opinion on compassion can for allow assisted dying interventions, Aristotle’s idea of virtues and vices restricts compassion to a scope that alleviates suffering through available means without causing death.