Euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and persistent vegetative state

The Lancet ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 348 (9026) ◽  
pp. 548-549 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiyohiko Hatake ◽  
Yasusada Miura
The Lancet ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 348 (9026) ◽  
pp. 548
Author(s):  
Thodoros Papapetropoulos ◽  
Vassilios Pelekoudas ◽  
Thanos Patrinos ◽  
Panayiotis Papathanasopoulos

The Lancet ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 348 (9026) ◽  
pp. 549
Author(s):  
Klaus Berek ◽  
Elisabeth Taferner ◽  
Mario Jeschow ◽  
Bernhard Voller ◽  
Leopold Saltuari

Legal Studies ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Keown

In Bland the House of Lords held it lawful to withdraw tube-feeding from a patient in a ‘persistent vegetative state’ (pvs), even with intent to kill him. The British Medical Association (BMA) recently published guidance on the withholding and withdrawal of ‘medical treatment’, so defined as to include food and water delivered by tube. The guidance endorses the withholding/withdrawal of tube-delivered food and water not only from patients in pvs but also from other non-terminally ill patients, such as those with severe dementia or serious stroke. The underlying justification appears (as in Bland) to be that such lives lack worth. This article offers three major criticisms of the guidance. First, its argument that tube-feeding is medical treatment rather than basic care is weak. Secondly, its reasons for not treating or tube-feeding undermine the BMA's longstanding opposition to active euthanasia and active assisted suicide. Thirdly, it relies heavily on legal precedent at the expense of ethical reasoning.


2005 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-85
Author(s):  
Deepak Kumar Gupta ◽  
AK Mahapatra

Crisis ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 109-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J Kelleher † ◽  
Derek Chambers ◽  
Paul Corcoran ◽  
Helen S Keeley ◽  
Eileen Williamson

The present paper examines the occurrence of matters relating to the ending of life, including active euthanasia, which is, technically speaking, illegal worldwide. Interest in this most controversial area is drawn from many varied sources, from legal and medical practitioners to religious and moral ethicists. In some countries, public interest has been mobilized into organizations that attempt to influence legislation relating to euthanasia. Despite the obvious international importance of euthanasia, very little is known about the extent of its practice, whether passive or active, voluntary or involuntary. This examination is based on questionnaires completed by 49 national representatives of the International Association for Suicide Prevention (IASP), dealing with legal and religious aspects of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, as well as suicide. A dichotomy between the law and medical practices relating to the end of life was uncovered by the results of the survey. In 12 of the 49 countries active euthanasia is said to occur while a general acceptance of passive euthanasia was reported to be widespread. Clearly, definition is crucial in making the distinction between active and passive euthanasia; otherwise, the entire concept may become distorted, and legal acceptance may become more widespread with the effect of broadening the category of individuals to whom euthanasia becomes an available option. The “slippery slope” argument is briefly considered.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document