Show simple item record

dc.creatorPerkin, R.M.en
dc.creatorResnik, D.B.en
dc.date.accessioned2016-01-09T00:18:09Zen
dc.date.available2016-01-09T00:18:09Zen
dc.date.created2002-08en
dc.date.issued2002-08en
dc.identifierdoi:10.1136/jme.28.4.273en
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationJournal of Medical Ethics 2002 August; 28(4): 273-274en
dc.identifier.urihttp://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=Response+to+Kuhse&title=Journal+of+Medical+Ethics+&volume=28&issue=4&spage=273-274&date=2002-08&au=Perkin,+R.M.;+Resnik,+D.B.en
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.28.4.273en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10822/1008775en
dc.description.abstractIn this short paper, we respond to critics of our original paper, The agony of agonal respiration: is the last gasp necessary?. A common thread in both Hawryluck's and Kuhse's responses is the difficulties encountered when using the agent's intentions to make moral distinctions between using neuromuscular blocking drugs to palliate versus using neuromuscular blocking drugs to kill. Although this difficulty does exist we maintain that the intentions of the physician must matter when providing end-of- life care.en
dc.formatArticleen
dc.languageenen
dc.sourceeweb:248620en
dc.subjectDrugsen
dc.subjectLifeen
dc.subject.classificationDrugs and Drug Industryen
dc.subject.classificationProlongation of Life and Euthanasiaen
dc.titleResponse to Kuhseen
dc.provenanceCitation prepared by the Library and Information Services group of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University for the ETHXWeb database.en
dc.provenanceCitation migrated from OpenText LiveLink Discovery Server database named EWEB hosted by the Bioethics Research Library to the DSpace collection EthxWeb hosted by DigitalGeorgetown.en


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Georgetown University Seal
©2009—2019 Bioethics Research Library
Box 571212 Washington DC 20057-1212
202.687.3885