PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Euthanasia, Active, Voluntary”

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.

At least 163 records · Page 9Linked to original sources
PubMed1982

Death education and attitudes toward euthanasia and terminal illness.

The attitudes of a random sample of Cleveland clergy toward the experience of terminal illness and the circumstances justifying euthanasia are presented and analyzed. The clergy response patterns revealed that, although eager to prolong life as long as possible, terminally ill patients fear a prolonged period of illness more than death itself. They also agreed that most patients favor the disclosure of terminal illness. The clergy's response to a questionnaire exhibited a definite ranking (i.e., scaling) in the order of priority of the different circumstances justifying passive euthanasia. Using training in death counseling as a control variable produced sharper division in the response categories for each statement. The controversial nature of euthanasia and the problem of ascertaining the psychological needs of the terminally ill became more apparent with the group who had more training in death counseling. Interpretations of the findings are presented, and a need for a careful reexamination of the effects of death education on attitudes toward controversial subjects in death and dying is stressed.

Attitude to Death↗
PubMed1989

Moral dilemma: to kill or allow to die?

The thesis of this paper is that while allowing a person to die with care can be morally justified in particular cases, the option of mercy killing can never be morally defended. There is a significant moral difference between these two concepts. Furthermore, the wedge argument, the medical fallibility argument, and the medical care and trust argument provide cogent and convincing reasons for maintaining a legal distinction between mercy killing and letting a person die.

Double Effect Principle↗
PubMed1999

Killing, letting die and moral perception: a reply to Grant Gillett.

A number of philosophers in recent times have employed arguments to show that there is no morally relevant difference between killing a patient and allowing that patient to die in those circumstances where the outcome is virtually identical and where death is preventable, at least for a significant time. From his perspective as both a philosopher and a clinician, Grant Gillett has rejected such general and abstract arguments in the light of the intuitions and moral perceptions available to clinicians and those who care for the terminally ill. I argue that his strategy fails, is massively question-begging, and that his appeal to the notion of 'moral particularism', far from being an alternative to cogent philosophical argument, actually supports the very position he has attempted to discredit.

Decision Making↗
PubMed1999

Right to die or duty to live? The problem of euthanasia.

Argument about euthanasia in Australia intensified following the world's first legal euthanasia death of Bob Dent under the Northern Territory's short-lived Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. This paper takes stock of the implacably opposed positions on euthanasia following Bob Dent's death, which provides a focus for the controversy, and identifies the key doctrines which separate adversaries in the euthanasia debate and their associated incommensurable intuitions.

Advance Directive Adherence↗