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.
Active euthanasia has been discussed in China from 1980. Some investigations show that many people, especially medical workers, accept active euthanasia. Active euthanasia is not yet legally permissible in China but research in ethics and public views will promote developments in this direction.
Most arguments against active euthanasia, as do most arguments in applied ethics generally, take place within the framework of what can broadly be referred to as a modern, as opposed to an ancient, approach to moral theory. In this paper, I argue that this fact works to the disadvantage of opponents of active euthanasia, and that if there is a successful argument against active euthanasia, it will be of the latter sort. In Part I, I attempt to clarify the distinction between modern and ancient approaches with which I am concerned. In Part II, I attempt to show that any argument against active euthanasia that is of the first sort is bound to fail. In Part III, I propose an argument against active euthanasia of the second sort that I believe has a better chance for success. In Part IV, I consider some objections that can be raised against this argument and attempt to show how they can be overcome.
Active euthanasia in the Netherlands remains a topic for both professional and public debate. However, many aspects of the medical practice of active euthanasia remain unclear, and no figures on the actual incidence of this practice exist. Legally, active euthanasia is a criminal offense, but a pattern of jurisprudence has developed since the first court case in 1973 that has allowed physicians to practice euthanasia under certain strict conditions. Two proposals, one from the Royal Dutch Medical Association and one from a government-appointed state commission, have advised that the current law be changed. While the debate continues, a number of Dutch institutions have developed procedures and policies to enable physicians and health care providers to participate in active euthanasia in an acceptable and controllable manner. However, many Dutch physicians remain uncomfortable with the professional and public tolerance of this practice.
OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the opinions of Alberta physicians about the acceptance of active euthanasia as a medical act (the "medicalization" of active euthanasia) and the reporting of colleagues practising active euthanasia, as well as the sociodemographic correlates. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of a random sample of Alberta physicians, grouped by site and type of practice. SETTING: Alberta. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2002 (46%) of the licensed physicians in Alberta were mailed a 38-item questionnaire in May through July 1991; usable responses were returned by 1391 (69%). RESULTS: Although only 44% of the respondents considered active euthanasia morally "right" at least 70% opted to medicalize the practice if it were legal by restricting it to be performed by physicians and to be taught at medical sites. Even though active euthanasia is criminal homicide in Canada, 33% of the physicians stated that they would not report a colleague participating in the act of anyone, and 40% and 60% stated that they would not report a colleague to medical or legal authorities respectively. Acceptance or rejection of active euthanasia as a medical act was strongly related to religious affiliation and activity (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This survey about active euthanasia revealed profound incongruities in the opinions of the sample of Alberta physicians concerning their ethical and social duties in the practice of medicine. These data highlight the need for relevant modifications of health education policies concerning biomedical ethics and physicians' obligations to society.
OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the opinions of a sample of Alberta physicians about the morality and legalization of active euthanasia, the determinants of these opinions and the frequency and sources of requests for assistance in active euthanasia. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of a random sample of Alberta physicians, grouped by site and type of practice. SETTING: Alberta. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2002 (46%) of the licensed physicians in Alberta were mailed a 38-item questionnaire in May through July 1991; usable responses were returned by 1391 (69%). RESULTS: Of the respondents 44% did believe that it is sometimes right to practice active euthanasia; 46% did not. Moral acceptance of active euthanasia correlated with type of practice and religious affiliation and activity. In all, 28% of the physicians stated that they would practice active euthanasia if it were legalized, and 51% indicated that they would not. These opinions were significantly related to sex, religious affiliation and activity, and country of graduation. Just over half (51%) of the respondents stated that the law should be changed to permit patients to request active euthanasia. Requests (usually from patients) were reportedly received by 19% of the physicians, 78% of whom received fewer than five. CONCLUSIONS: This survey revealed severely disparate opinions among Alberta physicians about the morality of active euthanasia. In particular, religious affiliation and activity were associated with the polarized opinions. The desire for active euthanasia, as inferred from requests by patients, was not frequent. Overall, there was no strong support expressed by the physicians for the personal practice of legalized active euthanasia. These data will be vital to those involved in health education and public policy formation about active euthanasia in Alberta and the rest of Canada.
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.
"When a country legalizes active euthanasia, it puts itself on a slippery slope from where it may well go further downward." If true, this is a forceful argument in the battle of those who try to prevent euthanasia from becoming legal. The force of any slippery slope argument, however, is by definition limited by its reference to future developments which cannot empirically be sustained. Experience in the Netherlands--where a law regulating active euthanasia was accepted in April 2001--may shed light on the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the slippery slope argument in the context of the euthanasia debate. This paper consists of three parts. First, it clarifies the Dutch legislation on euthanasia and explains the cultural context in which it originated. Second, it looks at the argument of the slippery slope. A logical and an empirical version are distinguished, and the latter, though philosophically less interesting, proves to be most relevant in the discussion on euthanasia. Thirdly, it addresses the question whether Dutch experiences in the process of legalizing euthanasia justify the fear of the slippery slope. The conclusion is that Dutch experiences justify some caution.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
This discussion was selected from the weekly Grand Rounds in the Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle. Taken from a transcription, it has been edited by Drs Paul G. Ramsey, Associate Professor of Medicine, and Philip J. Fialkow, Professor and Chair of the Department of Medicine.
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.