Dutch euthanasia: the new government ordered study.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
SEARCH · PubMed Health
Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The prohibition on taking human life is one of the cornerstones of Buddhist ethics, but there is often confusion about the interpretation of this prohibition in different contexts. In his commentary on the third parajika in the Samantapasadika, Buddhaghosa sets out to clarify the legal provisions of the monastic precept against taking life. The root text and his comments on it are relevant to the contemporary debate on euthanasia, and this paper considers what light Buddhist jurisprudence can shed on this moral dilemma.
Why has the law on euthanasia in the Netherlands caused such an upheaval both at home and abroad? In this paper I explore some bioethical issues in the decriminalisation of euthanasia in the Netherlands. The regulatory role of legal and state institutions in the process of decision-making by patients, physicians and other people concerned plays a central role in these discussions. I argue, first, that the limited scope of the Dutch legislation on euthanasia cannot be a solution to end-of-life issues in general, and, second, that it is inadequate as a model for dealing with problems related to 'death-on-request' abroad. Moreover, the confusion around the meaning of the term euthanasia would make its adaptation in other institutional environments capricious. Legal changes in the Netherlands was accompanied by cultural changes, expressed in the use of terms such as individual autonomy and personal choice. In the last section of this article I argue that the social and political environment may be crucial in defining the meaning of free choice. The contending views on the decriminalisation of euthanasia seem to develop as a reaction to change in medical technology in a particular socio-political environment rather than from a unique cultural ethic.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Death cannot be viewed properly as either an event or a configuration. Indeed, multiple parts of the body can continue to live long after the disintegration of its central organization is recorded. Instead of collapsing at a moment in time, technological mechanisms are capable of sustaining the major bodily processes indefinitely--all designed to allow for the harvesting of needed organs for transplantation. State legislative efforts have been undertaken in America to define those specific circumstances when death occurs legally. Although always allowed to exercise reasonable discretion in their decision making, attending physicians will nonetheless be aided by these laws that only limit their legal liability but assure for the patient that his final choices will be honored consistent with basic principles of self-determination. The Law Reform Commission of Canada recommended in 1987 that criminal liability be rejected for the offenses of helping, advising, or inciting a person to commit suicide. This is an exceedingly wise and humane position to follow. Instead of being held captive to words such as "rational suicide" or "euthanasia", what is needed is an acceptance of more contemporary watchwords such as autonomy and self-determination. When at all possible, final choices about death should be made by the patient's family and their medical advisers--and not be subjected to judicial scrutiny.