Currently Accepted Practices That Are Known to Lead to Death, and PAS: Is There an Ethically Relevant Difference?

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 7 (4):375-381 (1998)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

A number of common and generally noncontroversial practices in the care of patients at the end of life lead to their deaths. For example, physicians honor a patient's refusal of medical intervention even when doing so leads to the patient's death. Similarly, with a patient's or surrogate's consent, physicians administer sedatives in order to relieve pain and distress at the end of life, even when it is known that doing so will cause the patient's death. In contemporary U.S. public policy, these practices are accepted as ethical and legal while physician-assisted suicide (PAS) isrejected in current U.S. law and public policy. Some think, however, that if one accepts practices that are known to lead to a patient's death, then one cannot reasonably reject a patient's request for a lethal dose of medication so that she may kill herself (PAS)

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,793

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Instability of the Standard Justification for Physician-Assisted Suicide.Thomas A. Cavanaugh - 2001 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 10 (1):103-109.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-24

Downloads
81 (#251,504)

6 months
13 (#231,061)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Thomas Cavanaugh
University of San Francisco

References found in this work

When Self‐Detertnination Runs Amok.Daniel Callahan - 1992 - Hastings Center Report 22 (2):52-55.

Add more references