Autonomy, Interests, Justice and Active Medical Euthanasia
Chapter
First Online:
- 2 Citations
- 1 Mentions
- 3.7k Downloads
Abstract
There are 4 main arguments for euthanasia: (1) arguments appealing to consistency (e.g., from passive to active euthanasia); (2) the argument from respect for autonomy; (3) appeals to justice; (4) the argument from interests (mercy or relief of suffering). I will argue that only the last is directly relevant to active euthanasia as a medical intervention, though arguments together from autonomy and justice can in practice (through the backdoor) provide a ground for voluntary active medical euthanasia (AME).
Keywords
Palliative Care Down Syndrome Distributive Justice Cochlear Implant Epidermolysis Bullosa
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
- Battin, Margaret Pabst. 1994. The least worst death. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Gillon, Raanan. 1985. Philosophical medical ethics. Rights. British Medical Journal 290: 1890–1891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hope, Tony, Julian Savulescu, and Judith Hendrick. 2003. Medical ethics and law: The core curriculum. London: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
- Kahane, Guy, and Julian Savulescu. 2009. The welfarist account of disability. In Disability and disadvantage, eds. Adam Cureton and Kimberley Brownlee, 14–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kuhse, Helga. 1992. Quality of life and the death of “Baby M”: A report from Australia. Bioethics 6: 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mill, J.S. 1900. Principles of political economy. New York: P. F. Collier and Sons.Google Scholar
- Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Rachels, James. 1975. Active and passive euthanasia. New England Journal of Medicine 292: 78–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rachels, James. 2007. The morality of euthanasia. In The right thing to do, eds. James Rachels and Stuart Rachels, 151–155. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
- Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Savulescu, Julian. 2014. A simple solution to the puzzles of end of life? Voluntary palliated starvation. Journal of Medical Ethics 40: 110–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter F, and Franklin G. Miller. 2013. What makes killing wrong? Journal of Medical Ethics 39, 3–7.Google Scholar
- Verhagen, A.A. Eduard. 2013. The groningen protocol for newborn euthanasia: Which way did the slippery slope tilt? Journal of Medical Ethics 39: 293–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- White, Ben, Willmott Lindy, and Julian Savulescu. 2014. Voluntary palliated starvation: A lawful and ethical way to die? Journal of Law and Medicine 22: 376–386.Google Scholar
- Wilkinson, Dominic, and Julian Savulescu. 2011. Knowing when to stop: Futility in the ICU. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology 24: 160–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wilkinson, Dominic J.C., and Julian Savulescu. 2012. Should we allow organ donation euthanasia? Alternatives for maximizing the number and quality of organs for transplantation. Bioethics 26: 32–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wilkinson, Dominic J.C., and Julian Savulescu. 2014. Disability, discrimination and death: Is it justified to ration life saving treatment for disabled newborn infants? Monash Bioethics Review 32: 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Willmott, Lindy, Ben White, Malcolm K. Smith, and Dominic J.C. Wilkinson. 2014. Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in a patient’s best interests: Australian judicial deliberations. Medical Journal of Australia 201: 545–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015