Euthanasia: A Contemporary Moral Quandary
Dyck, Arthur J.
Lancet. 1989 Dec 2; 2(8675): 1321-1323.
Responding to an increased interest in establishing active, voluntary euthanasia as a viable medical and social policy, Reichel and Dyck consider the major arguments for and against the practice. Proponents of euthanasia support a patient's right of self determination and a compassion-motivated active ending of suffering. Opponents are concerned with the problems of determining intention and motivation, the danger of involuntary euthanasia of the aged, the handicapped, and the incompetent, and the impact on the physician patient relationship. Reichel and Dyck argue that, instead of euthanasia, physicians can offer terminally ill patients the "moral choice to die well" by alleviating pain, by respecting requests to forgo burdensome, invasive treatments, by providing comfort and support, and by communicating with patients and their families. (KIE abstract)
Active Euthanasia; Aged; Allowing to Die; Autonomy; Beneficence; Compassion; Competence; Consent; Economics; Euthanasia; Informed Consent; Intention; Involuntary Euthanasia; Legal Aspects; Life; Moral Policy; Motivation; Pain; Patients; Physician Patient Relationship; Physicians; Public Policy; Quality of Life; Right to Die; Social worth; Suffering; Self Determination; Terminal Care; Terminally Ill; Treatment Refusal; Value of Life; Voluntary Euthanasia;
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Reichel, William and Dyck, Arthur J. (1989-12-02)
Reichel, William; O'Connor, N.K.; Dyck, Arthur J. (1992-09)
Reichel, William; O'Connor, N. K.; Dyck, Arthur J. (1992-09)