Legislating Privilege

Author:

Spindelman Marc S.

Abstract

Serious concerns about pervasive, persistent, and unjustified social inequalities have prompted a small—but growing—number of academic commentators to raise some hard and troubling questions for those who would like to legalize physician-assisted suicide. In various ways, these commentators have asked: In light of existing social inequalities—inequalities that operate, for example, along sometimes intersecting lines of race, class, age, sex (including sexual orientation), and disability—how persuasive are autonomy-based arguments in favor of legalization of assisted suicide when those arguments depend (as they typically do) on a conception of autonomy that either presupposes social equality or does not expressly account for its absence? How compelling are arguments that we ought to legalize assisted suicide out of feelings of mercy for the sick and dying, when such affective expressions may actually be the socially acceptable manifestation of private ambivalence that includes merciless discrimination?

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Health Policy,General Medicine,Issues, ethics and legal aspects

Reference90 articles.

1. 72. Id. at 7 (emphasis removed).

2. 65. Perhaps more troubling still is the suggestion Lindsay seems to make that “any disparate impact [following from legalization] is [or would be] the unfortunate, but necessary price that must be paid for respecting a critical autonomy interest.” Id. at 10.

3. 2. Literally dozens and dozens of articles have appeared in the last several years — years in which the equality-based arguments against legalization of assisted suicide were simply too widely known to have been “missed” — that do not mention the equality arguments at all.

4. 14. Id. at 11.

5. 64. See, e.g., Lindsay, , supra note 3, at 7, 12, 13–14.

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Oregon's Experience: Evaluating the Record;The American Journal of Bioethics;2009-03-03

2. The Need to Specify the Difference “Difference” Makes;Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics;2002

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3