Final answer:
Pearlman and Starks suggest that healthcare providers should consider patients' main motive for seeking physician-assisted , which is often pursued by terminally ill patients to avoid pain and die with dignity. The AMA deems it unethical, but some U.S. states allow it under death with dignity laws. Philosophical opinions on the topic differ, weighing the value of life against the cessation of suffering.
Step-by-step explanation:
Pearlman and Starks highlighted the importance of addressing the primary motive behind patients' pursuit of physician-assisted (PAS). Physician-assisted is a medical practice where a physician provides a patient with the means to end their own life. This is often sought by patients suffering from a terminal illness who wish to die with dignity and avoid prolonged pain and suffering.
The American Medical Association (AMA) considers PAS unethical, yet some states in the U.S. permit it under 'death with dignity' laws. These states include Oregon, which first passed the Death with Dignity Act in 1997, allowing assisted with the involvement of two physicians.
Philosophical perspectives on PAS vary, with utilitarian thinkers like Peter Singer arguing for its permissibility based on the quality of life and avoidance of unnecessary pain, while others oppose it due to ethical concerns about the role of physicians and potential for misuse.