some argue this choice decreases the quality of end-of-life care for patients, even those choosing not to apply for PAS. However, research suggests there may be a benefit to the quality of end-of-life care if PAS is presented as a viable option for patients (Smith et al., 2011). Patients may feel a greater comfort in choosing to ease their pain. Furthermore, patients receiving PAS medications often report greater preparedness for death (Smith et al., 2011). There also appears to be no difference in the quality of death between PAS patients and non-PAS patients (Smith et al., 2011). Patients receiving PAS demonstrate no more physical or psychological symptoms or distress compared topatients dying naturally without PAS medications (Smith et al., 2011). Therefore, PAS can be utilized to increase the quality of healthcare, and the outcomes resulting from terminal illnesses, in PAS eligible cases. Patient SafetyAnother important concept in support of PAS is patient safety. Should a patient’s suffering become so unbearable they wish to die, it may be safer for that patient to die under PASthan under self-inflicted harm or other means of suicide (Dugdale et al., 2019). The pain and suffering resulting from a terminal illness are a threat to patient safety. Presenting PAS as a measure to increase patient safety is valid because pain and psychological symptoms are often difficult to ease. Furthermore, presenting PAS as an option for patients may facilitate greater critical thinking on death and dying that reduces the chance for impulse suicide attempts. The DWDA is highly regulated to ensure safety. Patients must be presented with all options for end-of-life care, witnesses must be present at the time of the patient’s written request for lethal medication, and the physician must ensure the patient is of sound mind. These safeguards allow
