PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12161582

Death with dignity.

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to develop a conception of death with dignity and to examine whether it is vulnerable to the sort of criticisms that have been made of other conceptions. In this conception "death" is taken to apply to the process of dying; "dignity" is taken to be something that attaches to people because of their personal qualities. In particular, someone lives with dignity if they live well (in accordance with reason, as Aristotle would see it). It follows that health care professionals cannot confer on patients either dignity or death with dignity. They can, however, attempt to ensure that the patient dies without indignity. Indignities are affronts to human dignity, and include such things as serious pain and the exclusion of patients from involvement in decisions about their lives and deaths. This fairly modest conception of death with dignity avoids the traps of being overly subjective or of viewing the sick and helpless as "undignified".

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Peter Allmark. 2002. Death with dignity.. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.28.4.255

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Existence and pluralism: the rediscovery of Karl Jaspers.

Karl Jaspers has been recognized in psychiatry mostly for his influence on phenomenology and on certain aspects of psychopathology, such as our understanding of delusions. In this paper, I will highlight the need to rediscover Jaspers' work in terms of other important ideas that he can contribute to psychiatry, in particular the concepts of limit situations, transcendence and pluralism. Limit situations refer to the fact that human life is characterized by existential situations, or crises, which become opportunities for authentic existence. Transcendence refers to the notion that freedom is an important aspect of human existence and cannot be explained by purely scientific understanding or encompassed by any purely rationalistic system of thought. Pluralism is perhaps Jaspers' most original perspective, which has still failed to be adequately appreciated by the psychiatric profession. The idea here is that science means understanding the methods by which we obtain knowledge, along with the presuppositions and limits of those methods. Contemporary psychiatry has only a limited appreciation of Jaspers' work. In this paper, I attempt to describe these important concepts that can help us understand what we do in psychiatry, what we should be doing and why.

Attitude to Death↗