Bioethics, Public Health, and Firearm-Related Violence: Missing Links Between Bioethics and Public Health

1997 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leigh Turner
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Food Additives ◽  
Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Gun Control ◽  
Immunization Programs ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Emergency Rooms ◽  
Rich Variety ◽  
The Subject

Open any standard bioethics textbook, and therein can be found a host of subjects ranging from the abortion rights controversy to the morality of xenographic tissue transplantation. Just as there is a wide scope to the subject matter of bioethics, its practitioners come from a multitude of disciplines, including law, medicine, nursing, theology, philosophy, sociology, and anthropology. And yet, despite a rich variety of investigators and methods, bioethicists overlook numerous subjects that deserve to be addressed. In particular, they neglect issues of public health, preventive medicine, and social medicine. Although topics such as physician-assisted suicide, prenatal genetic testing, and the ethics of new reproductive technologies constitute the contemporary canon of bioethics and deserve sustained analysis, these subjects are not so significant that they should eclipse other issues. For example, gun control policies, the regulation of food additives. immunization programs, prenatal care, leave programs enabling employees to care for dying relatives, the provision of nutrition and medical care to the homeless, and the use of emergency rooms by the most impoverished citizens are all topics neglected by bioethicists.

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.

scholarly journals Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Review from Islamic Point of View

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yousuf RM ◽  
Mohammed Fauzi AR
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Health Care Delivery System ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Medical Community ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Dying Patients ◽  
Practice Of Medicine ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Lay Public

Due to globalizing trend of homogenisation of culture, changes in the health care delivery system and market economics infringing on the practice of medicine, there has been a gradual shift in the attitude of the medical community as well as the lay public towards greater acceptance of euthanasia as an option for terminally ill and dying patients. Physicians in developing countries come across situations where such issues are raised with increasing frequency. As the subject has gained worldwide prominence, we want to review this topic from Islamic perspective due to its significance in medical ethics and clinical practice.

Szasz, suicide, and medical ethics

Thomas Szasz ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 55-64
Author(s):  
George J. Annas
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Suicide Prevention ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Suicidal Patients ◽  
Commit Suicide

Szasz objected to the medicalization of suicide, the legalization of suicide prevention, and especially the coercive role of psychiatry in this realm. He declared that, by medicalizing suicide, we banish the subject from discussion. What is meant by acceptable and unacceptable “suicide”? Who has a right to commit suicide? How does suicide implicate freedom? Does it reflect abortion jurisprudence? How do psychiatrists become suicide’s gatekeepers? Current phenomena (e.g., new physician-assisted suicide legislation) illuminate these and other issues (e.g., euthanasia, informed consent, informed refusal, the “right to die,”), all suggesting how Szasz would react to each. Suicide is legal, but is almost always considered a result of mental illness. Courts approve psychiatrists who want to commit “suicidal” patients involuntarily. Granting physicians prospective legal immunity for prescribing lethal drugs is, at best, a strange and tangential reaction to our inability to discuss suicide (and dying) rationally. Szasz got it right.

Embracing slippery slope on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia could have significant unintended consequences

2020 ◽  
pp. medethics-2020-106089 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zeljka Buturovic
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Psychiatric Disorders ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Recent Article ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
General Trust ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Public Health Authorities

In a recent article Joshua James Hatherley argues that, if physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is morally permissible for patients suffering from somatic illnesses, it should be permissible for psychiatric patients as well. He argues that psychiatric disorders do not necessarily impair decision-making ability, that they are not necessarily treatable and that legalising PAS for psychiatric patients would not diminish research and therapeutic interest in psychiatric treatments or impair their recovery through loss of hope. However, by erasing distinction between somatic and psychiatric disorders on those grounds, he also erases distinction between healthy adults and patients (whether somatic or psychiatric) essentially implying that PAS should be available to all, for all reasons or, ultimately no reason. Furthermore, as psychiatric patients are much more likely to be a source of usable organs for transplantation, their broad inclusion would strengthen the link between PAS/euthanasia and organ donation, potentially undermining both as well as diminishing already declining general trust in medical authorities and professionals and public health authorities and activists.

Reproductive and Maternal Health in Anthropology

Anthropology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Maternal Health ◽  
Reproductive Health ◽  
Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Feminist Studies ◽  
Reproductive Choice ◽  
New Directions ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Maternal Health Policy

In anthropology, the subject of maternal health is diffused within the broader areas of the anthropology of reproduction, fertility, and reproductive health. As a topic it is constituted by work at the intersections of anthropology, public health, feminist studies (covering topics on reproductive choice and autonomy, for instance), and development studies (with its focus on the issues of maternal and infant mortality). The citations presented here are grouped into six topic categories as linked to maternal health, each with further subtopics, on childbirth and maternal/reproductive health, fertility and infertility in maternal health, reproductive technologies and maternal health, family planning and maternal health, abortion, and maternal-health policy and human rights. The topics have been selected on the basis of historical work in these areas and in terms of new directions presented by more-recent work. Wherever possible, indigenous anthropological expertise stemming from local authors in the topic areas has been included.

Should Physicians Assist the Reaper?

1996 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joram Graf Haber
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
The Subject

Physician-assisted suicide is a novel idea having affinities with both suicide and euthanasia. It has affinities with suicide because it involves a self-inflicted death, and it has affinities with euthanasia because the physician is instrumental in the death. It is, however, not exactly either, making it the subject of an exciting debate.

scholarly journals Expressivism at the beginning and end of life

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (8) ◽  
pp. 538-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Reed
Keyword(s):  
End Of Life ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Disability Rights ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Negative Attitudes ◽  
Selective Abortion ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
Medical Practices

Some disability rights advocates criticise prenatal testing and selective abortion on the grounds that these practices express negative attitudes towards existing persons with disabilities. Disability rights advocates also commonly criticise and oppose physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia on the same grounds. Despite the structural and motivational similarity of these two kinds of arguments, there is no literature comparing and contrasting their relative merits and the merits of responses to them with respect to each of these specific medical practices. This paper undertakes such a comparison. My thesis is that a number of potentially significant weaknesses of the expressivist argument against reproductive technologies are avoided when the argument is used against PAS. In particular, I try to show that three common criticisms of the expressivist argument applied to reproductive technologies, whatever merit they have, have even less merit when they are used to reply to the expressivist argument applied to PAS. This is important because the expressivist argument applied to the end of life scenario does not get as much attention as the argument applied to the beginning of life scenario, and yet it has a relatively stronger position.

Euthanasia and Related Practices Worldwide

Crisis ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 109-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J Kelleher † ◽  
Derek Chambers ◽  
Paul Corcoran ◽  
Helen S Keeley ◽  
Eileen Williamson
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
International Association ◽  
Active Euthanasia ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Passive Euthanasia ◽  
Medical Practitioners ◽  
General Acceptance ◽  
International Importance ◽  
Controversial Area ◽  
Active And Passive Euthanasia

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