Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Double Effect Principle”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 199 records · Page 11Linked to original sources
PubMed1993

Euthanasia in The Netherlands: facts and moral arguments.

Some facts about euthanasia practices in The Netherlands are given. It is shown that there are several possible courses of action at the end of life, of which active euthanasia is the most problematic. Euthanasia is related to respect for the patient and the patient's right to refuse medical treatment. Some moral arguments against and in favour of euthanasia are discussed.

Beneficence↗
PubMed1996

Assisted suicide: is there a future? Ethical and nursing considerations.

It is imperative that nurses take a personal and professional stand in the debate regarding physician-assisted suicide. Through case examples, this article defines and illustrates forms of euthanasia, including active and passive, voluntary and involuntary, double-effect, physician-assisted suicide, and physician aid-in-dying. Ethical arguments against assisted suicide based on pain and suffering, quality of life, patient autonomy, and the common good are presented. The anticipated negative effects that legalized physician-assisted death would pose to the health professions and society are discussed. Guidelines and nursing implications conclude the article.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

End-of-life care: what do the American courts say?

End-of-life care of critically ill patients generally consists of two closely related practices: the withholding and withdrawal of life support, and the administration of palliative care. In the United States, the withholding or withdrawal of life support is legally justified by the principles of informed consent and informed refusal. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that competent patients may refuse any and all treatments, including those that sustain life. All states sanction such refusal by competent patients, and most states allow surrogates to refuse treatment on behalf of incompetent patients. Although some physicians use the concept of futility to unilaterally withhold or withdraw life support, the Supreme Court has not heard a futility case, and the only clear legal rule on futile treatment is the traditional malpractice test, which measures physician actions against standards of medical care. However, the Supreme Court has furnished guidelines on the administration of palliative care. By using the principle of double effect, these guidelines allow physicians to give sedative and analgesic agents to dying patients if they intend to relieve pain and suffering but not to hasten death.

Advance Directives↗
PubMed1995

Pharmacologic symptom control during the withdrawal of life support: lessons in palliative care.

The withdrawal of life support is now a common practice in the critical care setting. This treatment provides patients and families with greater opportunities for positive end-of-life experiences. It also challenges critical care nurses to promote patient comfort without inducing death by overdose. Dyspnea, pain, anxiety, and excessive secretions are troubling symptoms that often occur during the withdrawal of life support. In this article, the author reviews pharmacologic interventions that control these symptoms, focusing on the titration of potentially lethal drugs using patient responses and the ethical principle of double effect to guide nursing practice.

Anxiety↗
PubMed1998

Female genital mutilation and cosmetic surgery: regulating non-therapeutic body modification.

In the UK, female genital mutilation is unlawful, not only when performed on minors, but also when performed on adult women. The aim of our paper is to examine several arguments which have been advanced in support of this ban and to assess whether they are sufficient to justify banning female genital mutilation for competent, consenting women. We proceed by comparing female genital mutilation, which is banned, with cosmetic surgery, towards which the law has taken a very permissive stance. We then examine the main arguments for the prohibition of the former, assessing in each case both (a) whether the argument succeeds in justifying the ban and, if so, (b) whether a parallel argument would not also support a ban on the latter. We focus on the following arguments. Female genital mutilation should be unlawful because: (1) no woman could validly consent to it; (2) it is an oppressive and sexist practice; (3) it involves the intentional infliction of injury; (4) it causes offence. Our view is that arguments (3) and (4) are unsound and that, although arguments (1) and (2) may be sound, they support not only a ban on female genital mutilation, but also one on (some types of) cosmetic surgery. Hence, we conclude that the present legal situation in the UK is ethically unsustainable in one of the following ways. Either the ban on female genital mutilation is unjustified because arguments (1) and (2) are not in fact successful; or the law's permissive attitude towards cosmetic surgery is unjustified because arguments (1) and (2) are in fact successful and apply equally to female genital mutilation and (certain forms of) cosmetic surgery. The people of the countries where female genital mutilation is practised resent references to 'barbaric practices imposed on women by male-dominated primitive societies', especially when they look at the Western world and see women undergoing their own feminization rites intended to increase sexual desirability: medically dangerous forms of cosmetic plastic surgery, for instance....

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Right to die or duty to live? The problem of euthanasia.

Argument about euthanasia in Australia intensified following the world's first legal euthanasia death of Bob Dent under the Northern Territory's short-lived Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. This paper takes stock of the implacably opposed positions on euthanasia following Bob Dent's death, which provides a focus for the controversy, and identifies the key doctrines which separate adversaries in the euthanasia debate and their associated incommensurable intuitions.

Advance Directive Adherence↗
PubMed2002

Just how unlawful is "euthanasia"?

Those who campaign for law reform to permit "euthanasia" may seek different things and at least some of what they seek may already be permissible under the criminal law of England and Wales. In this paper I examine one means whereby the criminal law delivers outcomes acceptable to the euthanasia lobby, that is the curious notion of "causation" deployed by the law, which adds a value override to the more usual notion of factual causation such that, for example, if medical treatment falls within the acceptable range as normal and proper, the pre-existing injury or illness is treated as exclusively the cause of death and the doctor escapes criminal liability, even where the medical treatment will shorten life to the certain knowledge, possibly even the wish, of the doctor. Thus the law may already be delivering a range of outcomes--euthanasia in a weak sense--acceptable to the euthanasia lobby. If so, it achieves this by stealth. That is inappropriate to the doctor-patient relationship, which is one of trust. So there is a strong case for greater transparency. Moreover, there are limits to the acceptable outcomes which an unreformed criminal law can deliver and in a range of cases the criminal law condemns the doctor to impotence and the patient to a prolonged, miserable and undignified death. So there is also a case for going beyond the current law and legalising euthanasia in a strong sense.

Criminal Law↗
PubMed1990

Using people.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Beginning of Human Life↗
PubMed1996

Experiences and attitudes towards end-of-life decisions amongst Danish physicians.

In this survey we have investigated the experiences and attitudes of Danish physicians regarding end-of-life decisions. Most respondents have made decisions that involve hastening the death of a patient, and almost all find it acceptable to do so. Such decisions are made more often, and considered ethically more acceptable, with the informed consent of the patient than without. But both non-resuscitation decisions, and decisions to provide pain relief in doses that will shorten the patient's life, have been made and found acceptable by at least 50% of the respondents, even when there is no informed consent. Furthermore, 12% have doubled morphine dosages with fixed intervals, thus providing doses substantially higher than that necessary to control pain, without the informed consent of the patient. Two percent have helped in assisted suicide, and 5% have administered a lethal injection at the patient's request. Respectively 37% and 34% find these last two practices ethically acceptable. Amongst those that do not find them acceptable, the most important reasons to be opposed are, the doctrine of double effect, the doctrine of doing and allowing, and the view that human life is sacred. Amongst supporters, the most important reasons mentioned are, that the patient's right to self-determination should be respected, the view that a patient should not be forced to suffer, and the view that the patient has a right to be helped to a dignified death.

Analgesics, Opioid↗
PubMed2006

Restricted treatments, inducements, and research participation.

In this paper, I support the claim that placing certain restrictions on public access to possible new treatments is morally problematic under some exceptional circumstances. Very ill patients may find that all available standard treatments are unacceptable, either because they are ineffective or have serious adverse effects, and these patients may understandably be desperate to try something new even if this means stepping into the unknown. Faced with certain death, it is rational to want to try something new and to chance a dire outcome. Restricting possible new treatments to research trials may put these treatments scientifically, geographically or economically out of reach of these patients. For those who can get access, research restrictions could weaken, though not necessarily eliminate, the value of consent participants of such trials are able to give. Some participants may therefore be exploited for scientific purposes in the name of public interest. There are nonetheless compelling reasons for keeping some restrictive regulation in this area.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗