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.

On Pellegrino and Thomasma’s Admission of a Dilemma and Inconsistency

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 677-697 ◽  
Author(s):  
Loretta M Kopelman
Keyword(s):  
Medical Ethics ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Philosophy Of Medicine ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Healthcare Ethics ◽  
Patients Rights ◽  
Mercy Killing ◽  
Edmund Pellegrino ◽  
Healthcare Professions ◽  
Internal Morality

Abstract Edmund Pellegrino and David Thomasma’s writings have had a worldwide impact on discourse about the philosophy of medicine, professionalism, bioethics, healthcare ethics, and patients’ rights. Given their works’ importance, it is surprising that commentators have ignored their admission of an unresolved and troubling dilemma and inconsistency in their theory. The purpose of this article is to identify and state what problems worried them and to consider possible solutions. It is argued that their dilemma stems from their concerns about how to justify professional rules restricting colleagues from performing acts they view as direct, active, and formal (intentional) killings, such as physician-assisted suicide, mercy killing, and abortion. It is further argued that their inconsistency is that they both assert and deny that professional colleagues should not use their moral or theological values to impose professional restrictions on other colleagues without adequate philosophical grounds. At risk are their arguments about the nature of an internal morality for medicine, a secular and multicultural basis for medical ethics, and a nonarbitrary way to determine what acts fall outside the ends of medicine. These are arguments they claim also apply to other healthcare professions. The article begins with a brief overview of their key positions to provide the context in which they make their admission.

Gut Reactions

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (9) ◽  
pp. 1059-1063 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel C. Wisneski ◽  
Brad L. Lytle ◽  
Linda J. Skitka
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Moral Conviction ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Moral Convictions

Theory and research point to different ways moral conviction and religiosity connect to trust in political authorities to decide controversial issues of the day. Specifically, we predicted that stronger moral convictions would be associated with greater distrust in authorities such as the U.S. Supreme Court making the “right” decisions regarding controversial issues. Conversely, we predicted that stronger religiosity would be associated with greater trust in authorities. We tested these hypotheses using a survey of a nationally representative sample of Americans (N = 727) that assessed the degree to which people trusted the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the legal status of physician-assisted suicide. Results indicated that greater religiosity was associated with greater trust in the U.S. Supreme Court to decide this issue, and that stronger moral convictions about physician-assisted suicide were associated with greater distrust in the U.S. Supreme Court to decide this issue. Also, the processes underlying religious trust and distrust based on moral convictions were more quick and visceral than slow and carefully considered.

To die, to sleep, perchance to dream? A response to DeMichelis, Shaul and Rapoport

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (12) ◽  
pp. 832-834 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel L Gamble ◽  
Nathan K Gamble ◽  
Michal Pruski
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Medical Ethics ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Palliative Sedation ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Medical Assistance ◽  
End Of Life Decisions ◽  
Medical Assistance In Dying ◽  
Life Decisions

In developing their policy on paediatric medical assistance in dying (MAID), DeMichelis, Shaul and Rapoport decide to treat euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide as ethically and practically equivalent to other end-of-life interventions, particularly palliative sedation and withdrawal of care (WOC). We highlight several flaws in the authors’ reasoning. Their argument depends on too cursory a dismissal of intention, which remains fundamental to medical ethics and law. Furthermore, they have not fairly presented the ethical analyses justifying other end-of-life decisions, analyses and decisions that were generally accepted long before MAID was legal or considered ethical. Forgetting or misunderstanding the analyses would naturally lead one to think MAID and other end-of-life decisions are morally equivalent. Yet as we recall these well-developed analyses, it becomes clear that approving of some forms of sedation and WOC does not commit one to MAID. Paediatric patients and their families can rationally and coherently reject MAID while choosing palliative care and WOC. Finally, the authors do not substantiate their claim that MAID is like palliative care in that it alleviates suffering. It is thus unreasonable to use this supposition as a warrant for their proposed policy.

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.

Five Easy Arguments for Assisted Suicide and the Objections of Velleman and Gorsuch

Almost Over ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 208-244
Author(s):  
F. M. Kamm
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Terminally Ill ◽  
Double Effect ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Moral Permissibility ◽  
Harm To Others ◽  
David Velleman ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The U.S

This chapter presents five arguments in favor of the moral permissibility of, and even a duty to engage in, physician-assisted suicide both to end suffering and for other reasons in those who are and are not terminally ill. It considers objections to these sorts of arguments presented by David Velleman from a Kantian perspective and by Neil Gorsuch (now associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) who argues against intentionally causing death. The chapter considers how to identify intention, the significance of it for moral and legal permissibility, and the role of the Doctrine of Double Effect in arguments about assisted suicide. It also deals with the difference between assisted suicide for the good of some enabling versus causing harm to others.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document