PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12161586

Response to Kuhse.

R M Perkin·D B Resnik
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In this short paper, we respond to critics of our original paper, The agony of agonal respiration: is the last gasp necessary?. A common thread in both Hawryluck's and Kuhse's responses is the difficulties encountered when using the agent's intentions to make moral distinctions between using neuromuscular blocking drugs to palliate versus using neuromuscular blocking drugs to kill. Although this difficulty does exist we maintain that the intentions of the physician must matter when providing end-of-life care.

Explore related subjects

Attitude to DeathDecision MakingDyspneaEthics, ClinicalHumansMotivationNeuromuscular Blocking AgentsPalliative CareRespiratory SoundsTerminal CareAnalytical ApproachDeath and EuthanasiaCommentJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R M Perkin, D B Resnik. 2002. Response to Kuhse.. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.28.4.273

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

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↗