When slippery slope arguments miss the mark: a lesson from one against physician-assisted death

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (10) ◽  
pp. 657-660 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Blackstone ◽  
Stuart J Youngner
Keyword(s):  
Continuous Improvement ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Slippery Slope ◽  
Regulatory Agencies ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
Slippery Slope Arguments ◽  
Life Sustaining Treatment ◽  
American Society ◽  
Susan Wolf

In 1989, Susan Wolf convincingly warned of a troublesome consequence that should discourage any movement in American society towards physician-assisted death—a legal backlash against the gains made for limiting life-sustaining treatment. The authors demonstrate that this dire consequence did not come to pass. As physician-assisted suicide gains a foothold in USA and elsewhere, many other slippery slope arguments are being put forward. Although many of these speculations should be taken seriously, they do not justify halting the new practice. Instead, our courts, regulatory agencies, journalists, professional organisations and researchers should carefully monitor and study it as it unfolds, allowing continuous improvement just as our society has done in implementing the practice of limiting life-sustaining treatment.

Physician-Assisted Suicide: Where to Draw the Line?

2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 407-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
ERNLÉ W.D. YOUNG
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Assisted Dying ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
Policy Issues ◽  
Moral Distinction ◽  
Physician Assisted Dying ◽  
Hippocratic Tradition

In brief compass, I will touch on three of the central ethical and public policy issues that divide those who are opposed to physician-assisted dying from those who are supportive of this practice. These are: (1) the moral distinction (if any) between actively hastening death and passively allowing to die; (2) how to interpret the Hippocratic tradition in medicine with respect to physician-assisted death; and (3) whether physician-assisted suicide can be effectively regulated. I shall summarize the arguments pro and con with respect to each issue, and also indicate my own position.

Death with “dignity”: The wedge that divides the disability rights movement from the right to die movement

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan M. Behuniak
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Personal Autonomy ◽  
Right To Die ◽  
Disability Rights ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Death With Dignity ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
A Value ◽  
The Right

Much of the American debate over physician assisted death (PAD) is framed as an ideological split between conservatives and liberals, pro life and pro choice advocates, and those who emphasize morality versus personal autonomy. Less examined, but no less relevant, is a split within the ranks of progressives—one that divides those supporting a right to die in the name of human rights from disability rights activists who invoke human rights to vehemently oppose euthanasia. This paper reviews how “dignity” serves both as a divisive wedge in this debate but also as a value that can span the divide between groups and open the way to productive discourse. Supporters of legalized euthanasia use “dignity” to express their position that some deaths might indeed be accelerated. At the same time, opponents adopt the concept to argue that physician assisted suicide stigmatizes life with a disability. To bridge this divide, the worldviews of two groups, Compassion & Choices and Not Dead Yet, are studied. The analysis concludes that the two organizations are more parallel than contrary—a finding that offers opportunities for dialogue and perhaps even advances in public policy.

Death with “dignity”: The wedge that divides the disability rights movement from the right to die movement

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (01) ◽  
pp. 17-32
Author(s):  
Susan M. Behuniak
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Personal Autonomy ◽  
Right To Die ◽  
Disability Rights ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Death With Dignity ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
A Value ◽  
The Right

Much of the American debate over physician assisted death (PAD) is framed as an ideological split between conservatives and liberals, pro life and pro choice advocates, and those who emphasize morality versus personal autonomy. Less examined, but no less relevant, is a split within the ranks of progressives—one that divides those supporting a right to die in the name of human rights from disability rights activists who invoke human rights to vehemently oppose euthanasia. This paper reviews how “dignity” serves both as a divisive wedge in this debate but also as a value that can span the divide between groups and open the way to productive discourse. Supporters of legalized euthanasia use “dignity” to express their position that some deaths might indeed be accelerated. At the same time, opponents adopt the concept to argue that physician assisted suicide stigmatizes life with a disability. To bridge this divide, the worldviews of two groups, Compassion & Choices and Not Dead Yet, are studied. The analysis concludes that the two organizations are more parallel than contrary—a finding that offers opportunities for dialogue and perhaps even advances in public policy.

Rights of the Terminally Ill Act of the Australian Northern Territory

1996 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert L. Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Terminally Ill ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Intractable Pain ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Death With Dignity ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
Court Of Appeals

Over the past year the debate over physician-assisted death has been waged in several courts and legislatures, and before at least one electorate as well. Measure 16, the Oregon Death With Dignity initiative that would permit physician-assisted suicide in some circumstances, was approved by the electorate; but it remains on hold while a permanent injunction issued against it by a Federal judge is reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals. Another Federal court judge's decision that the Washington statute criminalizing physician-assisted suicide was unconstitutional when applied to the case of a competent terminally ill patient in intractable pain, was reversed by a three judge panel of that same United States Court of Appeals.

Physician-assisted suicide and physician-assisted euthanasia: evidence from abroad and implications for UK neurologists

2021 ◽  
pp. practneurol-2020-002811
Author(s):  
Uma Nath ◽  
Claud Regnard ◽  
Mark Lee ◽  
Kiran Alexander Lloyd ◽  
Louise Wiblin
Keyword(s):  
Significant Variation ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Motor Neurone ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Regulatory Oversight ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
Common Cause ◽  
Loss Of Autonomy

In this article, we consider the arguments for and against physician-assisted suicide (AS) and physician-assisted euthanasia (Eu). We assess the evidence around law and practice in three jurisdictions where one or both are legal, with emphasis on data from Oregon. We compare the eligibility criteria in these different regions and review the range of approved disorders. Cancer is the most common cause for which requests are granted, with neurodegenerative diseases, mostly motor neurone disease, ranking second. We review the issues that may drive requests for a physician-assisted death, such as concerns around loss of autonomy and the possible role of depression. We also review the effectiveness and tolerability of some of the life-ending medications used. We highlight significant variation in regulatory oversight across the different models. A large amount of data are missing or unavailable. We explore physician-AS and physician-assisted Eu within the wider context of end-of-life practice.

The Beginning and Ending of Life

2019 ◽  
pp. 162-171
Author(s):  
John Keown
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Human Development ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Terminally Ill ◽  
Medical Law ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Life Sustaining Treatment ◽  
The Law

This chapter identifies several respects in which medical law in England and Wales suffers from a lack of ethical coherence in relation to its protection of human life. It argues that it is philosophically incoherent for the law to calibrate its protection of human life according to arbitrary stages of human development such as birth, viability, the fourteenth day after fertilization, and implantation. To the extent that the law permits life-sustaining treatment to be withheld or withdrawn from incompetent patients on the ground that their ‘quality of life’ is insufficient, and even with an intent to hasten death, it again displays ethical incoherence. If legislators or judges were to make it lawful for physicians to intentionally assist suicidal refusals of treatment, or to endorse a right to physician-assisted suicide for the ‘terminally ill’, the law's ethical incoherence would be seriously aggravated.

Incidence and risk factors for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide in oncology patients: A systematic review.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 12034-12034
Author(s):  
Wei Liu ◽  
Luke Liu ◽  
Alissa Liu ◽  
Sang Jia ◽  
Tony Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Included Study ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Severe Nausea ◽  
Oncology Patients ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
Chi Squared

12034 Background: In a growing number of jurisdictions, oncology patients may choose euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (EPAS). A 2016 systematic review reported that 75% of U.S. and over 70% of Dutch and Belgian EPAS cases involved oncology patients. In the Netherlands and Belgium, the percentage of deaths among oncology patients via EPAS has been increasing. We investigated the incidence and risk factors for EPAS and EPAS requests in oncology patients. Methods: A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for articles from January 2000 to April 2020. Search terms were related to suicide, euthanasia, assisted dying, assisted death, right to die, mercy killing, and cancer. Eligible studies reported incidence and/or risk factors for EPAS/EPAS request based on at least 50 oncology patients. Eligibility for inclusion was independently reviewed by two authors, with discrepancies adjudicated by a third. Data obtained included: study type, country, cancer diagnosis, number of eligible patients, inclusion criteria, follow-up length, incidence of EPAS or EPAS request, and odds ratios (OR) for risk factors for EPAS and EPAS request. ORs and p values were extracted from studies whenever possible and were otherwise calculated based on the data provided using chi-squared test. Results: The search strategy identified 6519 results. 25 abstracts were selected for full-text review and 10 studies were included for analysis. All studies reported incidence of EPAS/EPAS request and 6 studies reported risk factors for EPAS/EPAS request. Six studies were from the Netherlands, 3 from Belgium, and 1 from Canada. Inclusion period for studies spanned from 1996 to 2018. Half of the included studies were prospectively conducted. Incidence of EPAS in cancer patients ranged from 7% to 15% and EPAS requests ranged from 8% to 27%. Factors significantly associated (p<0.05) with EPAS or EPAS request in any study are shown in the Table. Conclusions: Up to 15% of oncology patients choose euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. Potentially modifiable symptoms including severe nausea, vomiting, and pain are significantly associated with EPAS in oncology patients.[Table: see text]

Right to Die

2019 ◽  
pp. 71-74
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Ford
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Right To Die ◽  
Surrogate Decision Making ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Life Sustaining Treatment ◽  
Surrogate Decision ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Right To Refuse

Chapter 7 describes three cases that involve an individual’s right, in certain circumstances, to choose death. Cruzan v. Missouri is more specifically about a right to refuse life-sustaining treatment and surrogate decision-making; Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill are physician-assisted suicide cases, both decided on the same day by the U.S. Supreme Court and both declaring the practice unconstitutional.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document