PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Euthanasia, Passive”

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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1996

[Survey among Argentine physicians on medical decisions concerning the end of life in patients: active and passive euthanasia, and relief of symptoms].

Euthanasia and other medical decisions concerning the end of life (MDEL) have been poorly developed in the Argentine medical literature. On that basis, and presuming that MDEL occur frequently in the medical practice in our country (in spite of insufficient pre and postgraduate medical education on the matter), we have developed a survey on MDEL. It was conformed by a 13 multiple-choice question poll, which was answered by 172 physicians from Buenos Aires, suburban locations and La Plata. The questionnaire began with a professional profile and subsequently developed questions on medical, legal, ethical, religious and sociologic aspects of MDEL. The questions were based on the main or more frequent topics referred to MDEL, according to the medical literature between 1989 and 1994, researched through Medline. The poll was anonymous. Most of the questions could be answered based on the physician's attitudes toward MDEL; some required specific knowledge on the subject (as in the questions on legal matters). Three different MDEL were defined for this survey: active Euthanasia, Passive Euthanasia and Relief of Symptoms. Results showed that MDEL are frequent (69%) of the physicians have performed Relief of Symptoms, 58% Passive Euthanasia, and 7% Active Euthanasia) and that the physician's knowledge on the subject is poor and sparse. We concluded that more research on MDEL is needed in Argentina in order to support changes in medical education and legal background.

Argentina↗
PubMed2005

Passive euthanasia.

The idea of passive euthanasia has recently been attacked in a particularly clear and explicit way by an "Ethics Task Force" established by the European Association of Palliative Care (EAPC) in February 2001. It claims that the expression "passive euthanasia" is a contradiction in terms and hence that there can be no such thing. This paper critically assesses the main arguments for the Task Force's view. Three arguments are considered. Firstly, an argument based on the (supposed) wrongness of euthanasia and the (supposed) permissibility of what is often called passive euthanasia. Secondly, the claim that passive euthanasia (so-called) cannot really be euthanasia because it does not cause death. And finally, a consequence based argument which appeals to the (alleged) bad consequences of accepting the category of passive euthanasia.We conclude that although healthcare professionals' nervousness about the concept of passive euthanasia is understandable, there is really no reason to abandon the category provided that it is properly and narrowly understand and provided that "euthanasia reasons" for withdrawing or withholding life-prolonging treatment are carefully distinguished from other reasons.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed1986

Distinguishing between active and passive euthanasia.

The standard ways of distinguishing between active and passive euthanasia, act versus omission, and removal of ordinary versus removal of extraordinary care, do not have any clear moral significance. We have used particular aspects of the physician-patient relationship to make a morally significant distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is defined as the physician's abiding by the rational valid refusal of life-sustaining treatment of a patient or his surrogate decision-maker. Understanding passive euthanasia in this way makes it clear why, everything else being equal, there is no morally significant difference between discontinuing a treatment and not starting it, for example, taking a patient off a respirator versus not putting him on in the first place. It also makes clear why stopping the feeding and hydration of some patients is not merely morally permissible but is morally required. Patients may make a rational valid refusal of food and fluids just as they may of other kinds of life support, and what patients rationally refuse when competent holds its force when they become incompetent. By basing the distinction between active and passive euthanasia on the universally recognized moral force of a rational valid refusal, we have provided a clear foundation for the moral significance of this distinction. Our way of making the distinction preserves for patients the control over their lives that has sometimes been unjustifiably taken from them. It also eases the burden on doctors who no longer are forced to make use of ad hoc and confused distinctions in which they justifiably have little faith.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Passive euthanasia in palliative care.

Passive euthanasia is invariably practised in palliative care. This article aims to address the legal, moral and ethical implications of not hydrating dying patients and presents the results of a questionnaire assessing doctors' attitudes.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed1975

Active and passive euthanasia.

The traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia requires critical analysis. The conventional doctrine is that there is such an important moral difference between the two that, although the latter is sometimes permissible, the former is always forbidden. This doctrine may be challenged for several reasons. First of all, active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia, Secondly, the conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds. Thirdly, the doctrine rests on a distinction between killing and letting die that itself has no moral importance. Fourthly, the most common arguments in favor of the doctrine are invalid. I therefore suggest that the American Medical Association policy statement that endorses this doctrine is unsound.

American Medical Association↗
PubMed2001

Passive euthanasia in dementia: killing ... or letting die?

A sample of carers was asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire designed to collect information about carers' characteristics and obtain their views on passive euthanasia. Each carer was given an information sheet about the study, which included a detailed and clear account for the different types of euthanasia. The study showed a strong support for passive euthanasia from the non-professional carers of dementia patients. The strongest support was for the idea of a 'Living Will'. Having previous experience in looking after other people with dementia would appear to influence carers' perception of passive euthanasia. The subject of passive euthanasia and its ramifications for sufferers, carers and professionals warrants further exploration.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Why does removing machines count as "passive" euthanasia?

The distinction between "passive" and "active" euthanasia, though problematic and highly criticized, retains a certain intuitive appeal. When a patient is allowed to die, nature appears simply to be taking its course. Yet when a patient is killed by, say, a lethal injection, humans appear to be causing his or her death. Guilt seems to follow naturally from the latter act while not from the former. Yet this view only holds up if age-old and vague ideas about "nature" and "artifice" go unscrutinized. Once examined more closely the functional relevance of particular machines to particular bodies becomes evident. And the innocence and guilt less clear.

Adult↗