This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
For example Sydney H. Wanzer et. al.: “The physician’s responsibility toward hopelessly ill patients” in The New England Journal of Medicine (March 30, 1989) 320, p.847 have argued that “in the patient whose dying process is irreversible, the balance between minimizing pain and suffering and potentially hastening death should be struck clearly in favor of pain relief. Narcotics or other pain medications should be given in whatever dose and by whatever route is necessary for relief. It is morally correct to increase the dose of narcotics to whatever dose is needed, even though the medication may contribute to the depression of respiration or blood pressure, the dulling of consciousness, or even death, provided the primary goal of the physician is to relieve suffering. The proper dose of pain medication is the dose that is sufficient to relieve pain and suffering, even to the point of unconsciousness.”
Darrel W. Amundsen (1978:24.) See also p.25 where he says that the Greek physicians took their duty to abstain from treating hopelessly ill patients as seriously as one might take a religion.
Even those against euthanasia accept letting die and the doctrine of double effect tries to address this. See Childress, (1998:120–147). “In 1982 the AMA in “Principles of Medical Ethics” say: “Quality of life is a factor to be considered in determining what is best for the individual. Life should be cherished in determining disabilities and handicaps, except when prolongation would be inhumane and unconscionable. Under these circumstances, with hold or removing life support means is ethical provided that the normal care given an individual who is ill is not discontinued. ... The social commitment of the physician is to prolong life and relieve suffering. Where the observance of one conflicts with the other, the physician, patient, and/or family of the patient have discretion to resolve the conflict. For humane reasons, with informed consent a physician may do what is medically indicative to alleviate severe pain, or cease or omit treatment to let a terminally ill patient die, but he should not intentionally cause death. In determining whether the administration of potentially life-prolonging medical treatment is in the best interest of the patient, the physician should consider what the possibility is for extending life under humane and comfortable conditions and what are the wishes and attitudes of the family or those who have responsibility for the custody of the patient. When a terminally ill patient’s coma is beyond doubt irreversible, and there are adequate safeguards to confirm the accuracy of the diagnosis, all means of life support systems may be discontinued. If death does not occur when life support systems are discontinued, the comfort and dignity of the patient should be maintained.” (Rachels,:90–91).
Willard Graylin, et. al. (1988:14) do not accept euthanasia on the same basis. See also Wanzer et. al. (1989:320).
See also Wanzer (1989: 345).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2004). The Morality of Euthanasia and Its Implications for the Medicalisation of Capital Punishment. In: Thomasma, D.C., et al. The Ethics of Medical Involvement in Capital Punishment. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 18. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2539-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2539-4_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1764-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-2539-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive