Autonomy, Interests, Justice and Active Medical Euthanasia

  • Julian SavulescuEmail author
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 64)


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).


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.


  1. Battin, Margaret Pabst. 1994. The least worst death. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Gillon, Raanan. 1985. Philosophical medical ethics. Rights. British Medical Journal 290: 1890–1891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hope, Tony, Julian Savulescu, and Judith Hendrick. 2003. Medical ethics and law: The core curriculum. London: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Kuhse, Helga. 1992. Quality of life and the death of “Baby M”: A report from Australia. Bioethics 6: 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Mill, J.S. 1900. Principles of political economy. New York: P. F. Collier and Sons.Google Scholar
  7. Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Rachels, James. 1975. Active and passive euthanasia. New England Journal of Medicine 292: 78–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter F, and Franklin G. Miller. 2013. What makes killing wrong? Journal of Medical Ethics 39, 3–7.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Wilkinson, Dominic, and Julian Savulescu. 2011. Knowing when to stop: Futility in the ICU. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology 24: 160–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of OxfordOxfordThe United Kingdom

Personalised recommendations