Autonomy, Human Dignity, and the Right to Healthcare: A Dutch Perspective

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 321-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARTIN BUIJSEN
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Medical Ethics ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Ethics Policy ◽  
The Right

Dutch medical ethics policy is renowned for being highly liberal, due largely to the Dutch law on euthanasia. The Netherlands is one of the very few countries in which euthanasia performed by physicians and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) has been legalized. Acts of euthanasia and PAS go unpunished, provided certain conditions are fulfilled.

scholarly journals EXPLORING THE CONCEPT OF UBUNTU IN RELATION TO DYING WITH DIGNITY IN PALLIATIVE AND HOSPICE CARE

Obiter ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ntokozo Mnyandu
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Hospice Care ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Dying With Dignity ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Hospice And Palliative Care ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The Supreme Court of Appeal in Minister of Justice and Correctional Services v Estate Stransham-Ford raised more questions than the answers it provided. However, of note is the enquiry it made regarding the implications of palliative care in relation to whether the criminality of physician-assisted suicide and physician- administered euthanasia infringes a person’s dignity. In response, this paper aims to reconstruct – through the lens of Ubuntu – our understanding of human dignity and draw links with how the values of compassion and survival, which underpin Ubuntu, enjoin us as a re-affirmation of human dignity, to strive towards making hospice and palliative care readily available. Ultimately, this is done for the benefit of providing constitutionally sound reasons for why greater emphasis should be placed on palliative and hospice care when it comes to dying with dignity. To this effect, a conceptual framework of human dignity that is based on Ubuntu is summarised. This is done for the purpose of properly aligning the understanding of the right to dignity to one that represents our constitutional dispensation and ethos. Flowing from this is an extract of the values of compassion and survival that underpin Ubuntu. These values are then used to gain a lucid perspective, as to why – in our pursuit of providing a dignified death for terminally ill patients – greater emphasis should be placed on hospice and palliative care.

Developments in the practice of physician-assisted dying: perceptions of physicians who had experience with complex cases

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 292-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marianne C Snijdewind ◽  
Donald G van Tol ◽  
Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen ◽  
Dick L Willems
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Public Debate ◽  
Complex Case ◽  
Assisted Dying ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Physician Assisted Dying ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Way

BackgroundSince the enactment of the euthanasia law in the Netherlands, there has been a lively public debate on assisted dying that may influence the way patients talk about euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (EAS) with their physicians and the way physicians experience the practice of EAS.AimTo show what developments physicians see in practice and how they perceive the influence of the public debate on the practice of EAS.MethodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of in-depth interviews with 28 Dutch physicians who had experience with a complex case of EAS. Respondents were recruited both by the network of physicians working for SCEN (Support and Consultation for Euthanasia in the Netherlands) as well as via a national questionnaire, wherein participating physicians could indicate their willingness to be interviewed.ResultsThree themes came up in analysing the interviews. First, the interviewed physicians experienced a change in what (family of) patients would expect from them: from a role as an involved caregiver to being the mere performer of EAS. Second, interviewees said that requests for EAS based on non-medical reasons came up more frequently and wondered if EAS was the right solution for these requests. Last, respondents had the impression that the standards of EAS are shifting and that the boundaries of the EAS regulation were stretched.ConclusionsThe perceived developments could make physicians less willing to consider a request for EAS. Our results also raise questions about the role of physicians and of EAS in society.

Dignity and the Case in Favor of Assisted Suicide

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralf Stoecker
Keyword(s):  
Human Dignity ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Ethical Perspective ◽  
Commit Suicide

Advocates of legalization of physician-assisted suicide usually argue that it is as matter of respect for human dignity that people get help in ending their lives (1) because the prohibition interferes with a fundamental liberty to conduct life according to one’s own preferences and (2) because sometimes suicide is an appropriate measure to avoid living an undignified life. In this chapter, it is argued that although the first argument is strong, the second argument is misguided. Hence, from an ethical perspective, society should not legally prohibit physician-assisted suicide. Yet, the person him- or herself should not commit suicide either. In particularly, the person should not regard such a suicide as a demand of his or her dignity.

Terminal Sedation: Palliative Care for Intractable Pain, Post Glucksberg and Quill

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-76
Author(s):  
Rob McStay
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Intractable Pain ◽  
Terminal Sedation ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
The Right ◽  
Artificial Life Support ◽  
Unconscious State

In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court tacitly endorsed terminal sedation as an alternative to physician-assisted suicide, thus intensifying a debate in the legal and medical communities as to the propriety of terminal sedation and setting the stage for a new battleground in the “right to die” controversy. Terminal sedation is the induction of an unconscious state to relieve otherwise intractable distress, and is frequently accompanied by the withdrawal of any life-sustaining intervention, such as hydration and nutrition. This practice is a clinical option of “last resort” when less aggressive palliative care measures have failed. Terminal sedation has also been described as “the compromise in the furor over physician-assisted suicide.”Medical literature suggests that terminal sedation was a palliative care option long before the Supreme Court considered the constitutional implications of physician-assisted suicide. Terminal sedation has been used for three related but distinct purposes: (1) to relieve physical pain; (2) to produce an unconscious state before the withdrawal of artificial life support; and (3) to relieve non-physical suffering.

Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide among Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis in the Netherlands

2002 ◽  
Vol 346 (21) ◽  
pp. 1638-1644 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan H. Veldink ◽  
John H.J. Wokke ◽  
Gerrit van der Wal ◽  
J.M.B. Vianney de Jong ◽  
Leonard H. van den Berg
Keyword(s):  
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Lateral Sclerosis

scholarly journals Euthanasia and suicide: a medical and social discourse

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-112
Author(s):  
V. N. Ostapenko ◽  
I. V. Lantukh ◽  
A. P. Lantukh
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Adequate Quality ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Strong Explosion ◽  
The Right

Annotation. The problem of suicide and euthanasia has been particularly updated with the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused a strong explosion of suicide, because medicine was not ready for it, and the man was too weak in front of its pressure. The article considers the issue of euthanasia and suicide based on philosophical messages from the position of a doctor, which today goes beyond medicine and medical ethics and becomes one of the important aspects of society. Medicine has achieved success in the continuation of human life, but it is unable to ensure the quality of life of those who are forced to continue it. In these circumstances, the admission of suicide or euthanasia pursues the refusal of the subject to achieve an adequate quality of life; an end to suffering for those who find their lives unacceptable. The reasoning that banned suicide: no one should harm or destroy the basic virtues of human nature; deliberate suicide is an attempt to harm a person or destroy human life; no one should kill himself. The criterion may be that suicide should not take place when it is committed at the request of the subject when he devalues his own life. According to supporters of euthanasia, in the conditions of the progress of modern science, many come to the erroneous opinion that medicine can have total control over human life and death. But people have the right to determine the end of their lives while using the achievements of medicine, as well as the right to demand an extension of life with the help of the same medicine. They believe that in the era of a civilized state, the right to die with medical help should be as natural as the right to receive medical care. At the same time, the patient cannot demand death as a solution to the problem, even if all means of relieving him from suffering have been exhausted. In defense of his claims, he turns to the principle of beneficence. The task of medicine is to alleviate the suffering of the patient. But if physician-assisted suicide and active euthanasia become part of health care, theoretical and practical medicine will be deprived of advances in palliative and supportive therapies. Lack of adequate palliative care is a medical, ethical, psychological, and social problem that needs to be addressed before resorting to such radical methods as legalizing euthanasia.

Euthanasia, Human and Other

2020 ◽  
pp. 157-176
Author(s):  
Anna L. Peterson
Keyword(s):  
Medical Ethics ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Moral Agents ◽  
Mercy Killing ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
The Difference

This chapter turns to one of the most important and controversial issues in medical ethics: euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS). The intensely personal scale of mercy killing makes it possible to consider practice in a very concrete way, including activities that shape the situations of very ill people and their relations with a variety of other moral agents, from family members and physicians to policymakers. The chapter explores not only human euthanasia and PAS but also killings of nonhuman animals, including both the euthanasia of beloved pets and the killing of homeless dogs and cats in shelters. This comparison highlights the difference that relationships make in ethical arguments. It also reveals how much species runs through ethical argumentation, in the form of unquestioned assumptions about what makes a life valuable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document