China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Ending lives with and without request
Published in Govert den Hartogh, What Kind of Death, 2023
The reason why opponents of legalization don't buy this quick reply is that they believe that consent isn't really essential to the justification of euthanasia. The reasons that are standardly offered for considering euthanasia morally acceptable under some circumstances are, they suggest, equally good reasons for ending someone's life without his request under similar circumstances. It is obvious that the cogency of this argument depends on the actual reasons offered. If it is true, as most supporters of the legalization of euthanasia seem to think, that an appeal to the principle of respect for autonomy is both necessary and sufficient to justify euthanasia, the argument clearly is a non-starter. If the right to life implies the power to waive other people's duty not to take your life, it is obvious that no-one can legitimately consider taking it without your consent.
Medical intervention, a life saver or a life changer?
Published in Catherine Proot, Michael Yorke, Challenges and Choices for Patient, Carer and Professional at the End of Life, 2021
Catherine Proot, Michael Yorke
Some people feel overwhelmingly that if the experience of loving support and closeness with putting down a dog can be replicated in the case of a human relationship, with the proper criteria and real emotional support, that that must be right; that must be permissible. And in some countries, there are legal provisions to allow euthanasia under certain conditions. What is the difference between the dog’s death, the death of a child who is grievously ill in the womb or that of a child who is unwanted by a fornicating parent? What is the difference? Why can some people nod in the case of abortion pretty well on demand and agonise over assisted dying in an aged adult? Such reflection can be very unsettling. The human mind seeks to set priorities, and the main issue can become lost in the thinking, the discussion and the aims.
End of life
Published in Gary Chan Kok Yew, Health Law and Medical Ethics in Singapore, 2020
Proponents of physician-assisted euthanasia argue that terminally ill patients should have the right to choose death when the quality of life has deteriorated below a minimum threshold (in physical, mental, emotional and spiritual terms). This is often associated with the notion of a dignified death. van Zyl (2000, at p. 183) argued that allowing a person to die in such circumstances can be an act of “responsible benevolence” (provided it is based on scientific knowledge, expertise and practical wisdom in understanding the patient’s experiences) underpinned by the “virtue of respectfulness” (in order to advance the patient’s interests by taking into account his life’s plan, values and beliefs).
Rethinking the Role of Experimental Philosophy in Bioethics
Published in The American Journal of Bioethics, 2022
Gonzalo Díaz-Cobacho, Ivar R. Hannikainen
Instead, participants distinguished killing from letting die by considering the patient’s preferences. If the patient preferred to live, the doctor was seen as killing them; and if the patient preferred to die, the doctor was seen as letting the patient die, regardless of whether the intervention was active or omissive in nature. Strikingly, this pattern was not weakened by medical training: medical professionals were equally likely to base their judgments of whether an action constituted killing or letting die on the patient’s preference rather than the doctor’s behavior. In this regard, this experimental study can be seen as reviving important philosophical questions about end-of-life care. Our initial normative reading of these findings is that they invalidate the argument against active euthanasia outlined earlier; yet there is ample room for normative moral philosophy to debate, build on, and help guide this research program so as to better answer the practical and theoretical questions that end-of-life bioethics faces.
The ongoing discussion on termination of life on request. A review from a German/European perspective
Published in International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, 2021
If one wants to differentiate between the different types of euthanasia regarding their medical and ethical relevance, active euthanasia and assisted suicide should be considered to be the most serious forms because they are usually performed as a separate act beyond the normal physician-patient relationship and are an intentional termination of life without any human or medical relationship. In contrast, passive and indirect euthanasia are embedded in the context of a mature treatment relationship between a patient and their physician and could be seen as the closest form of such a relationship because these types of euthanasia are usually performed by a physician who knows the patient well and whom the patient trusts. However, all cases of euthanasia must respect the patient’s will, not only in the legal but also in the natural sense, including last-minute expressions of will.
Moralities of Method: Putting Normative Arguments in Their (Social and Cultural) Place
Published in The American Journal of Bioethics, 2019
In the light of this discussion, it is interesting to point out that when the Dutch introduced the regulations governing the termination of life on request and assisted suicide, they seemed to be aware of the possibility that new policies may alter existing norms about the value of life. It is technically incorrect to say that euthanasia is “legal” in the Netherlands. It is not. It is legally protected. That is, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are still considered murder, but the assisting physician will not be prosecuted if she or he acts in accordance with the “due care” criteria, including, among others, the presence of a voluntary and “well-considered” request from the patient, the presence of hopeless and unbearable suffering, and consultation with another independent physician who has seen the patient and provided a written agreement that the due care criteria are met (Regionale Toetsing commissies Euthanasie [Regional Euthanasia Review Committees] 2018). Some might argue that this distinction is trivial, but it affirms that the taking of the life of another is a serious offense, a violation of a shared norm. It keeps the cultural prohibition against killing in place while allowing the merciful killing of those who face unbearable and hopeless suffering.