Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Wedge Argument”

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 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources
PubMed1993

A critique of using age to ration health care.

Daniel Callahan has argued that economic and social benefits would result from a policy of withholding medical treatments which prolong life in persons over a certain age. He claims 'the real goal of medicine' is to conquer death and prolong life with the use of technology, regardless of the age and quality of life of the patient, and this has been responsible for the escalation of health care expenditure. Callahan's proposal is based on economic rationalism but there is little evidence to suggest that substantial economic savings could be achieved. Moreover, his argument raises serious moral objections. A policy of withholding treatments from members of a social group involves elements of compulsion and discrimination, both of which would intrude on the doctor-patient relationship, undermine the autonomy of elderly patients, and invoke the slippery slope towards involuntary forms of euthanasia. Life-death decisions should be based on more than the one criterion of age, and take account of more relevant factors such as the patient's usual state of well-being, her/his expressed wishes, informed consent and the type of illness. Any move to the implementation and enforcement of the policy Callahan recommends would be rejected by health professionals and the public.

Ethical Analysis↗
PubMed1991

The history of eugenics and the future of gene therapy.

In this commentary, I shall provide an overview of some recent histories of eugenics and suggest some lessons that this history may have for today. This commentary is not an argument against gene therapy. Rather, it is a plea for historical understanding of what has been done,..."in the name of eugenics."... There is a temptation to parody misgivings about gene therapy. I suggest that there are justified reasons to think about the social consequences of gene therapy. I do not hold that we ought to stop the program now, but I do believe that scientists, physicians, and the public ought to be aware of the slippery slope on which we as a society -- and we are all members of society -- have embarked.

Persons with Disabilities↗
PubMed1989

Judicial postponement of death recognition: the tragic case of Mary O'Connor.

A recent New York Court of Appeals decision seriously impedes the ability of incompetent patients to control their medical care. In the case of Mary O'Connor, the court virtually eliminated an incompetent's rights to bodily integrity and privacy. The court relied on formalistic evidentiary arguments to vitiate the patient's refusal of death-prolonging treatment. This Case Comment examines both the doctrine and policy underlying the O'Connor decision, suggesting that the court erred in its holding and reasoning. An alternative framework is presented, arguing that courts should honor competently expressed patient decisions concerning medical treatment. New York's highest court, instead, posited an incompetent patient who becomes competent for a moment to render a decision. This legal fiction is nothing more than a thinly masked technique for imposition of the judges' values on the patient. This Case Comment argues that in the absence of clear direction from the patient, family and loved ones generally should make care decisions for the patient.

Aged↗
PubMed1994

Euthanasia in The Netherlands.

The practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands is often used as an argument in debates outside the Netherlands--hence a clear description of the Dutch situation is important. This article summarises recent data and discusses conceptual issues and relevant characteristics of the system of health care. Special emphasis is put on regulation, including relevant data on notification and prosecution. Besides the practice of euthanasia the Dutch are confronted with the gaps in reporting of cases to the public prosecutor and the existence of cases of ending a life without an explicit request. Nevertheless, the "Dutch experiment" need not inevitably lead down the slippery slope because of the visibility and openness of this part of medical practice. This will lead to increased awareness, more safeguards, and improvement of medical decisions concerning the end of life.

Advance Directives↗
PubMed2004

Moving from voluntary euthanasia to non-voluntary euthanasia: equality and compassion.

The recent Dutch law legalising active voluntary euthanasia will reignite the euthanasia debate. An illuminating method for evaluating the moral status of a practice is to follow the implications of the practice to its logical conclusion. The argument for compassion is one of the central arguments in favour of voluntary active euthanasia. This argument applies perhaps even more forcefully in relation to incompetent patients. If active voluntary euthanasia is legalised, arguments based on compassion and equality will be directed towards legalising active non-voluntary euthanasia in order to make accelerated termination of death available also to the incompetent. The removal of discrimination against the incompetent has the potential to become as potent a catch-cry as the right to die. However, the legalisation of non-voluntary euthanasia is undesirable. A review of the relevant authorities reveals that there is no coherent and workable "best interests" test which can be invoked to decide whether an incompetent patient is better off dead. This provides a strong reason for not stepping onto the slippery path of permitting active voluntary euthanasia.

Civil Rights↗
PubMed1998

What should we do about Eduard Pernkopf's atlas?

Eduard Pernkopf created a classic anatomy atlas during World War II. He was also an ardent Nazi. Questions have been raised recently about the propriety of using an atlas created by a Nazi and illustrated by dissections of cadavers whose identities are unknown, but who could have been victims of Nazi political terror. To examine the ethical issues involved, the author first reviews recently published work regarding Pernkopf and his atlas, with the caution that facts are few in a debate where emotions run high and opinions abound. He then considers what has been written by bioethicists on the use of scientific data from the Nazi era and how those arguments might apply to Pernkopf and his atlas. Important questions remain, however. For example, are scientific data tainted by their associations with Nazism, or should such data (including the atlas) be assessed on their own merits, separate from the persons and ideologies involved in their creation? Finally, the author offers his own perspective as a young gross anatomist and physician. He argues that rejecting the hateful beliefs of Pernkopf and his fellow Nazis does not necessitate rejecting the elegant anatomic images they produced. The author further suggests that use of the atlas is itself the most fitting tribute to those who died for it, whether they were victims of Nazi repression or not. Those cadavers not only teach anatomy, they "can remind us of suffering not only in the past but in the present, that we may be more compassionate physicians, more compassionate citizens of the world."

Anatomy, Artistic↗
PubMed2000

Euthanasia and assisted suicide in the post-Rodriguez era: lessons from foreign jurisdictions.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are highly controversial subjects that have drawn much attention in Canada over the last two decades. This paper outlines how the Netherlands, the United States, Australia, and Canada have approached the practices. Jurisprudence, public opinion polls, legislative developments, and the positions of medical organizations and their members are included in the analysis. A number of arguments for and against the continued prohibition of the practices in Canada are evaluated. As well, information regarding the extent to which euthanasia and assisted suicide are performed in these countries is assessed. It will be shown that Canadians currently enjoy significant control over decisions concerning end of life. The principles of autonomy and beneficence provide the foundation necessary to justify lifting the prohibition of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. With regard to the development of safeguards, the way in which foreign jurisdictions have dealt with both procedures is highly instructive. A qualified system of pre-authorization, unlike those adopted elsewhere, would prevent abuses from occurring and maintaining the prohibition of non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Since legislators are in the best position to deal with the issues, change in the law should be made by the government, not the judiciary. Practical legislation is feasible and a proposal of what this should entail is presented.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2002

Euthanasia, virtue ethics and the law.

Following the recent revival of virtue ethics, a number of ethicists have discussed the moral problems surrounding euthanasia by drawing on concepts such as compassion, benevolence, death with dignity, mercy, and by inquiring whether euthanasia is compatible with human flourishing. Most of these writers assert, or simply assume, that their arguments concerning the morality of euthanasia also support their views with regard to legislation. I argue, against these writers, that legislation cannot and should not be based on our moral and religious beliefs concerning whether euthanasia allows a person to die a good death. I then outline an Aristotelian approach to the role of law and government in a good society, according to which the task of the legislator is not to ensure that people actually act virtuously, but is instead to make it possible for them to choose to live (and die) well by ensuring that they have access to the goods that are necessary for flourishing. In the second half of the paper I apply this approach to the question of whether voluntary active euthanasia should be legalised by asking (1) whether euthanasia always deprives people of the necessary conditions for flourishing, and (2) whether the option to request euthanasia is ever necessary for flourishing.

Chronic Disease↗
PubMed1993

Should we change the human genome?

Should we change the human genome? The most general arguments against changing the human genome are here in focus. Distinctions are made between positive and negative gene therapy, between germ-line and somatic therapy, and between therapy where the intention is to benefit a particular individual (a future child) and where the intention is to benefit the human gene-pool. Some standard arguments against gene-therapy are dismissed. Negative somatic therapy is not controversial. Even negative, germ-line therapy is endorsed, if the intention is to cure a certain individual (a future child). In rare cases, positive therapy on somatic cells may be warranted. Germ-line therapy may become a valuable method of preventing harm, through 'genetic vaccination'. If safe methods evolve, it is harmless (though vain), to try to achieve more ambitious goals. Prospective parents should not be prevented from exercising this harmless kind of parental authority. The paper concludes: There is a moral limit to how much we ought to manipulate the human genome, however. We ought not to jeopardize the continued existence of mankind. We ought not to develop methods of germ-line therapy intended in a radical manner to improve human nature, and we ought to leave to prospective parents to decide in individual cases what kind of intervention shall take place.

Biological Evolution↗
PubMed1998

Euthanasia and assisted suicide: facts, figures and fancies with special regard to old age.

The objective of this paper is to describe the ethics and incidence of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (EAS) with special regard to old age. It is based on an assumption that if and when a practice of euthanasia and EAS is allowed, several vulnerable groups, including the elderly, may become a 'population at risk'. We describe some of these claims, and make an inventory of the arguments against a permissive policy concerning euthanasia and EAS which emphasise inherent dangers for the elderly. We then give an overview of the results of empirical studies about incidence of (request for) euthanasia and assisted suicide in the Netherlands, Australia, the UK, the US, Denmark and Norway. These results confirm that practitioners do receive requests for EAS and that EAS is performed in all these countries. However, there are large differences between these countries with regard to the numbers of requests and performances. Dutch findings concerning the age distribution of patients who received euthanasia or assisted suicide indicate that these procedures are rare in the elderly and in nursing homes. We conclude that, although euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal, there is evidence that these practices occur in all countries studied. Most surveys on the incidence of euthanasia show lower figures than those in the Netherlands. Dutch studies do not provide any evidence for the elderly being in danger of becoming 'victims' of euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Aged↗
PubMed1993

The anencephalic organ donor: a challenge to existing moral and statutory laws.

OBJECTIVES: To inform physicians of the critical shortage of neonatal heart donors and to provide arguments for and against selecting brain-absent anencephalics as heart donors for brain-normal infants who are dying of hypoplastic left heart syndrome. DATA SOURCES: International scientific journals of medicine, genetics, epidemiology, bioethics, and public health; adjudicated U.S. civil court cases; and state regulations and statutes. STUDY SELECTION: Worldwide experience with anencephalics as homologous organ donors. DATA EXTRACTION: Demographic and epidemiologic data on anencephalic births and natural histories; U.S. civil, district, and appellate court case decisions directing or prohibiting organ donation; state determination-of-death acts; state uniform-anatomical-gift acts. DATA SYNTHESIS: Organization of all data into either moral challenges or legal challenges to anencephalic organ donation. CONCLUSIONS: Statutory laws pose a greater challenge to anencephalic organ donation than moral laws. Case law reviews eliminate substituted judgment rulings in directing anencephalic organ donation. A redefinition of brain death applying only to human beings born without a brain would make more donor hearts available to brain-normal infants dying of hypoplastic left heart syndrome.

Anencephaly↗
PubMed1993

Two lawyers and a technician.

The major arguments used to support the legalization of euthanasia are that such a move would increase autonomy both for individuals and for society as a whole, and would diminish suffering. This paper examines these two points from several angles, and concludes that, from the standpoint of society as a whole, the legalization of euthanasia would be likely to achieve the complete opposite: a reduction in autonomy and an increase in overall suffering. The involvement of doctors in euthanasia is seen as a separate debate. The medical ethic of beneficence and its importance are discussed, together with the consequent dilemmas produced if this ethic is to be retained at the same time as requesting doctors to perform euthanasia. Consequences for the doctor-patient relationship in terms of loss of trust are described. To resolve these dilemmas it is suggested that, if euthanasia were legalized, initial assessment should be by two lawyers, and the act itself performed by a technician, suitably vocationally trained.

Beneficence↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Assisted suicide: implications for nurses and nursing.

Assisted suicide is an issue of great importance to nurses. This issue reflects our values and beliefs as a society, calls for a clear and precise response as a profession, and challenges individual nurses to think about their own moral views. The history of the debate and the compelling moral arguments on both sides attest to the complexity of the issue and also suggest that it will not soon be resolved. The current position of the profession, as expressed in the ANA Code for Nurses and a specific position statement, were reviewed. The dilemma faced by the individual nurse who perceives an obligation to adhere to the guidelines specified by his or her profession's code and yet whose conscience dictates an act in violation of this code has been discussed as an instance of conscientious objection. While this analysis has been necessarily brief, it was intended to illustrate the importance of being clear about one's personal moral views and equally clear about one's duty to fulfil the obligations stemming from the profession's public statements. It is essential that the profession continue to explore the moral issues involved in requests for assistance in dying and provide additional guidelines for practicing nurses, with sound rationale for the profession's position.

American Nurses' Association↗
PubMed2004

Kidney transplants from young children and the mentally retarded.

Kidney donation by young children and the mentally retarded has been supported by court decisions, arguments based on obligations inherent in family relationships, an array of contextual factors, and the principle of beneficence. These justifications for taking organs from people who cannot protect themselves are problematic and must be weighed against our obligation to protect the vulnerable. A compromise solution is presented that strongly protects young children and the mentally retarded but does not abdicate all responsibility to relieve suffering. Guidelines are proposed that prohibit the retrieval of kidneys from young children and the mentally retarded but permit one exception. They would allow retrieval of a kidney when the consequence to a first order relative with whom the donor has a meaningful and valuable relationship is otherwise imminent death. This would be done in accordance with additional guidelines that minimize harm to the donor. Since most patients with end stage renal disease can be maintained on dialysis the need for a kidney to prevent death should be an uncommon occurrence. This compromise is proposed as a solution to a dilemma that exists because two ethical principles are in conflict and one cannot be honored without violating the other.

Child↗
PubMed1994

Why do I stand against the movement for cardiac transplantation in Japan?

In order to clarify the reason the author stands against the movement for cardiac transplantation in Japan, certain crucial differences between death judged by the classical criteria and so-called brain death are briefly discussed, followed by the presentation of three major arguments. First, various problems associated with postoperative care of organ recipients are delineated, particularly side effects of immunosuppressive drugs and long term prognosis with reference of life expectancy as well as quality of life. Second, it is emphasized that transplantation involves prejudice and inequality, since the number of potential organ recipients far exceeds that of donors and only a small portion of transplant candidates can actually receive the organs while others have to wait in vain. Third, once organ transplantation from brain dead patients is allowed, numerous ethical and social problems would arise including an arbitrary expansion of the criteria for brain death, selection of donors and recipients by taking non-medial factors into consideration, development of organ commerce leading to the involvement of organized crime, and the birth of a trend in transplant candidates to wish for an early death of histocompatible donors. Finally, it is pointed out that we must give serious thought to the danger of "from neck down" transplantation creating a new person from two bodies (which is a brain transplant in actuality) in the future, since the difference between such a procedure and the multiorgan transplantation presently practiced in many developed countries is only quantitative and one cannot find a logical reason to ban the former while retaining the latter.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMedDate not supplied

A feminist case against euthanasia. Women should be especially wary of arguments for "the freedom to die".

Feminists, among others, should not be too quick to hail assisted suicide and euthanasia as extensions of human freedom. Indeed, there are good reasons why women should be especially suspicious of such "reforms." First, it is not clear that a person has a moral right to end his or her existence. Feminists understand that suicide and murder are irretrievably linked, and that a person is not a monad. We often hear of suicide attempts in which the person's body--by vomiting up poison, for instance--overrules his or her mind. If there can be such miscommunication between a mind and a body, how are we to trust the communication between a person and the physician ready to assist his or her suicide? Ambivalent motivation and ambiguous meanings have always characterized human relations. In the past, however, an absolute taboo against suicide or euthanasia cemented a patient's right to expect the care of his or her physician, family, and community. If we were to discard that taboo, we would subtly alter these relationships and make each other more vulnerable. History suggests that women, minorities, the ill, the old, and the handicapped would be most at risk. Finally, the assisted-suicide debate has even larger social implications. Unconditional respect for the gift of life is eroding in the United States. The suicide rate is already climbing at all levels of society, especially among teenagers. Wouldn't the acceptance of suicide and euthanasia make it even more acceptable for people to check out of all kinds of uncomfortable situations--marriages or life?

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Why is the ethics of euthanasia wrong?

Human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and are therefore of intrinsic worth or value, beyond all prices. Almost all Christian pro-life arguments spring from the fountain of personal dignity. Euthanasia would make moral sense only if it were possible to say, morally, that this dignity had vanished. To commit euthanasia is to act with the specific intention that somebody should be nobody. This is the fundamental error of all immorality in human relations. To commit euthanasia is to fail to see the intrinsic worth or dignity of the person. The judgement that what has worth, intrinsically, somehow does not have worth, is both logically and morally wrong. The ethics of euthanasia is based on dualistic anthropology and wrong moral presuppositions underlying the defence of euthanasia, namely, proportionalism and consequentialism. The basic claim of proponents of the ethics of euthanasia is that human persons are consciously experiencing subjects whose dignity consists of their ability to made choices and to determine their own lives. Bodily life, according to them, is a condition for personal life because without bodily life one cannot be a consciously experiencing subject. It means that bodily life is distinct from personal life. Thus, the body and bodily life are instrumental goods, goods for the person, not goods of the person. It thus follows that there can be such a thing as a life not worth living--one can judge that bodily life itself is useless or burdensome, and when it is, the person, i.e., the consciously experiencing subject, is at liberty to free himself of this useless burden. Today a key in fighting euthanasia and assisted suicide is better care for the sick and dying. The dignity of the sick cannot be erased by illness and suffering. Such procedures are not private decisions; they affect the whole society. Death with dignity, in the end, is the realisation that human beings are also spiritual beings. We have to promote the way of caring for the dying in which mercy is extended to the patients without inducing death.

Christianity↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The Supreme Court addresses physician-assisted suicide. Can its rulings improve palliative care?

In June 1997, the US Supreme Court unanimously decided that competent, terminally ill patients have no general constitutional right to commit suicide or to obtain assistance in committing suicide. Thus, the broad prohibitions against any kind of suicide assistance that almost every state has enacted do not violate the constitution. While many of the rulings and the bulk of the reaction to them focused on the Supreme Court's resolution of important legal controversies regarding physician-assisted suicide, this article focuses on the resulting potential for change in physicians' opinions on palliative care. The Court's reasoning may help physicians resolve substantial ethical dilemmas regarding the provision of narcotics given in high dosages, the care of incompetent patients, and the suffering caused by symptoms other than pain. For example, the Court concluded that a physician's intent can distinguish permissible acts of aggressive pain relief from impermissible acts of hastening death. This distinction has clinical uses and can help physicians develop ethical guidelines and practice standards to improve palliative care near the end of life.

Coma↗