Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia

Author:

Sprung Charles L.1,Somerville Margaret A.2,Radbruch Lukas3,Collet Nathalie Steiner4,Duttge Gunnar5,Piva Jefferson P.6,Antonelli Massimo7,Sulmasy Daniel P.8,Lemmens Willem9,Ely E. Wesley10

Affiliation:

1. General Intensive Care Unit, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel

2. Professor of Bioethics, School of Medicine, The University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, Australia; Samuel Gale Professor of Law Emerita, Professor Faculty of Medicine Emerita, Founding Director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law Emerita, McGill University Montreal, Canada

3. Department of Palliative Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany

4. General Internal Medicine specialist FMH, Palliative care practice, Geneva, Switzerland

5. Center for Medical Law, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

6. Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil), Medical Director-Pediatric Emergency and Critical Care, Department H Clinicas P. Alegre, Brazil

7. Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore—Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy

8. Kennedy Institute of Ethics and Pellegrino Center, Departments of Medicine and Philosophy, Georgetown University, Washington D.C., United States

9. Department of Philosophy, Centre for Ethics, University of Antwerp, Belgium

10. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center and Veteran’s Affair TN Valley Geriatric Research Education Clinical Center (GRECC), Nashville, TN, United States

Abstract

Medical professional societies have traditionally opposed physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia (PAS-E), but this opposition may be shifting. We present 5 reasons why physicians shouldn’t be involved in PAS-E. 1. Slippery slopes: There is evidence that safeguards in the Netherlands and Belgium are ineffective and violated, including administering lethal drugs without patient consent, absence of terminal illness, untreated psychiatric diagnoses, and nonreporting; 2. Lack of self-determination: Psychological and social motives characterize requests for PAS-E more than physical symptoms or rational choices; many requests disappear with improved symptom control and psychological support; 3. Inadequate palliative care: Better palliative care makes most patients physically comfortable. Many individuals requesting PAS-E don’t want to die but to escape their suffering. Adequate treatment for depression and pain decreases the desire for death; 4. Medical professionalism: PAS-E transgresses the inviolable rule that physicians heal and palliate suffering but never intentionally inflict death; 5. Differences between means and ends: Proeuthanasia advocates look to the ends (the patient’s death) and say the ends justify the means; opponents disagree and believe that killing patients to relieve suffering is different from allowing natural death and is not acceptable. Conclusions: Physicians have a duty to eliminate pain and suffering, not the person with the pain and suffering. Solutions for suffering lie in improving palliative care and social conditions and addressing the reasons for PAS-E requests. They should not include changing medical practice to allow PAS-E.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

General Medicine

Cited by 40 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

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