Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center · 2001
Physician-assisted suicide: the legal slippery slope.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Walker R M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In Oregon, physicians can prescribe lethal amounts of medication only if requested by competent, terminally ill patients. However, the possibility of extending the practice to patients who lack decisional capacity exists. This paper examines why the legal extension of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) to incapacitated patients is possible, and perhaps likely.
METHODS: The author reviews several pivotal court cases that have served to define the distinctions and legalities among "right-to-die" cases and the various forms of euthanasia and PAS.
RESULTS: Significant public support exists for legalizing PAS and voluntary euthanasia in the United States. The only defenses against sliding from PAS to voluntary euthanasia are adhering to traditional physician morality that stands against it and keeping the issue of voluntary euthanasia legally framed as homicide. However, if voluntary euthanasia evolves euphemistically as a medical choice issue, then the possibility of its legalization exists.
CONCLUSIONS: If courts allow PAS to be framed as a basic personal right akin to the right to refuse treatment, and if they rely on right-to-die case precedents, then they will likely extend PAS to voluntary euthanasia and nonvoluntary euthanasia. This would be done by extending the right to PAS to incapacitated patients, who may or may not have expressed a choice for PAS prior to incapacity.
METHODS: The author reviews several pivotal court cases that have served to define the distinctions and legalities among "right-to-die" cases and the various forms of euthanasia and PAS.
RESULTS: Significant public support exists for legalizing PAS and voluntary euthanasia in the United States. The only defenses against sliding from PAS to voluntary euthanasia are adhering to traditional physician morality that stands against it and keeping the issue of voluntary euthanasia legally framed as homicide. However, if voluntary euthanasia evolves euphemistically as a medical choice issue, then the possibility of its legalization exists.
CONCLUSIONS: If courts allow PAS to be framed as a basic personal right akin to the right to refuse treatment, and if they rely on right-to-die case precedents, then they will likely extend PAS to voluntary euthanasia and nonvoluntary euthanasia. This would be done by extending the right to PAS to incapacitated patients, who may or may not have expressed a choice for PAS prior to incapacity.