Sanctity of Life vs. Quality of Life in Maternal-Fetal Surgery: Personal and Public Priorities

Author(s):  
Mary B. Mahowald
2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Omipidan Bashiru Adeniyi

The trend in most part of the western world today is the agitations for a person to have the right to take his own life, when such life, becomes unbearable due to pain, being the result of a severe or terminal illness. This is the position of proponents of the concept of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Opponents of the concept on the other hand are of the view that no matter the circumstances, a person should not take his own life because he has contributed nothing to its creation. They therefore uphold the sanctity of life as against its quality. This paper seeks to examine the relative arguments and will address the position of Islamic law governing the euthanasia debate.


1996 ◽  
Vol 1 (6) ◽  
pp. 320-327
Author(s):  
Joan Liaschenko

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 87-97
Author(s):  
Martin Gluchman

Abstract The paper presents different approaches to the relationship of life and death among selected authors as a review of their articles within the last volume of the Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe) journal. The resource of the review is an article by Peter Singer The challenge of brain death for the sanctity of life ethics. Firstly, I try to analyze the issue when death occurs and when we can talk about death as a phenomenon that each and every living human being must come to terms within the course of their lives. Ethics of social consequences is used to analyze different approaches and states a conclusion defending the principles of humanity and human dignity within the scope of this ethical theory applied to various problem cases. I strive to support the question of the quality of life through the paternalistic approach of physicians influenced by their humane and dignified understanding of their relationship towards the patients. Ethics of social consequences offers many solutions to the discussed issues throughout the reviewed articles.


Author(s):  
Renee D. Boss

Medical and technological advances permit the survival of many infants born prematurely or with congenital anomalies. Prenatal diagnosis of a life-threatening fetal condition can give families the time to prepare for a sick infant and to consider treatment options ranging from pregnancy termination to fetal surgery. Despite the successes in perinatal and neonatal care, there remain a group of infants whose neonatal complications result in chronic illness, serious disability, and a foreshortened life span. It remains unclear how clinicians can best guide families who wish to make decisions based on their infant’s predicted quality of life. Multiple legal and policy restrictions attempt to limit the scope of parent–clinician decision making for these infants.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 260-261
Author(s):  
ALBERT S. CALLIE

To the Editor.— Singer, in his article "Sanctity of Life or Quality of Life?" (Pediatrics 1983;72:128-129) has rejected the "sanctity-of-life view"—as he defines it. He calls it "the obsolete and erroneous notion of the sanctity of all human life." He states that "the philosophical foundations of this view have been knocked asunder." He adds "We can no longer base our ethics on the idea that human beings are a special form of creation made in the image of God."


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 72 (5) ◽  
pp. 754-754
Author(s):  
MADELEINE WILL

To the Editor.— The article by Singer, "Sanctity of Life or Quality of Life?" (Pediatrics 1983;72:128-129) chronicled and supported the decline in the sanctity of life ethic; Singer also unwittingly chronicled a decline in the quality of our understanding and respect for persons with disabilities. The article, which compares severely disabled infants unfavorably with pigs and dogs, is not only needlessly provocative, but disregards among other things, the constitutional rights of disabled citizens. In Singer's words, the lives of these Americans are "demonstrably awful."


1994 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-74
Author(s):  
Bernard Teo

In discussions regarding the withholding of extraordinary medical treatment for the severely incapacitated, appeal is often made to the “quality-of-life” rather than to the “sanctity-of-life”. This article explores the background to both theories and argues that the traditional “sanctity-of-life” doctrine remains viable and useful.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document