Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Euthanasia, Active”

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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1992

[Attitudes towards active euthanasia and its legislation in Spain].

BACKGROUND: The present forms of carrying out public health care have lead to probably more effective medicine but which at the same time has led to greater risks in violating patients' rights and welfare. At present, a series of arguments are been debated for soliciting the legalization of euthanasia as a form of avoiding possible abuses. Thus, the opinions and attitudes concerning legislation for active euthanasia in terminally ill patients were herein investigated. METHODS: An anonymous survey was elaborated in which 1,109 subjects from three sectors of the population participated: a) hospital personnel (doctors n = 346 and nurses n = 346) of the University Hospital San Carlos in Madrid, b) students (n = 261) of the University Complutense of Madrid, and c) retired people (n = 156) in an old age residence in the province of Madrid (Pinto). The sample was made up of a total of 446 males and 657 females with ages of between 20 and 90 years. RESULTS: Most of those surveyed were in agreement in determined circumstances or totally in agreement with legislation for active euthanasia in terminally ill patients (63%). With respect to acceptation to the practice of legislation for active euthanasia 63% were in agreement in determined circumstances or totally in agreement. Significant differences were found (p less than 0.05) in relation to age, sex, marital status, religion and political ideology of the subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Although the results found in this study concerning the opinions and attitudes on legislation for active euthanasia in terminally ill patients coincided when compared with other existing studies with respect to acceptation for legislation, a less favorable tendency to the same was evident.

Adult↗
PubMed1992

The method of 'principlism': a critique of the critique.

Several scholars have recently criticized the dominant emphasis upon mid-level principles in bioethics best exemplified by Beauchamp and Childress's Principles of Biomedical Ethics. In Part I of this essay, I assess the fairness and cogency of three broad criticisms raised against 'principlism' as an approach: (1) that principlism, as an exercise in applied ethics, is insufficiently attentive to the dialectical relations between ethical theory and mortal practice; (2) that principlism fails to offer a systematic account of the principles of non-maleficence, beneficence, respect for autonomy, and justice; and (3) that principlism, as a version of moral pluralism, is fatally flawed by its theoretical agnosticism. While acknowledging that Beauchamp and Childress's reliance upon Ross's version of intuitionism is problematic, I conclude that the critics of principlism have failed to make a compelling case against its theoretical or practical adequacy as an ethical approach. In Part II, I assess the moral theory developed by Bernard Gert in Mortality: A New Justification of the Moral Rules, because Gert has recommended his approach as a systematic alternative to principlism. I judge Gert's theory to be seriously incomplete and, in contrast to principlism, unable to generate coherent conclusions about cases of active euthanasia and paternalism.

Beneficence↗
PubMedDate not supplied

A good death: is euthanasia the answer?

Euthanasia--particularly active voluntary euthanasia--and assisted suicide are subjects of continuing controversy. Historical attitudes, current concerns, the situation in the Netherlands, and the positions of various medical associations are reviewed. Major arguments for and against active euthanasia are presented, with special consideration to the role that health care providers might be asked to perform should active euthanasia and assisted suicide be given societal sanction. The authors conclude that better pain management and A willingness to provide care within already established ethical and legal guidelines, not the legalization of active euthanasia and assisted suicide, are the appropriate responses to current proposals for assistance in dying.

Attitude↗
PubMed1992

Aid-in-dying: should we decriminalize physician-assisted suicide and physician-committed euthanasia?

Recent news stories, medical journal articles, and two state voter referenda have publicized physicians' providing their patients with aid-in-dying. This Note distinguishes two components of aid-in-dying: physician-assisted suicide and physician-committed voluntary active euthanasia. The Note traces these components' distinct historical and legal treatments and critically examines arguments for and against both types of action. This Note concludes that aid-in-dying measures should limit legalization initiatives to physician-assisted suicide and should not embrace physician-committed voluntary active euthanasia.

Ethics, Medical↗
PubMed1975

Active and passive euthanasia.

The traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia requires critical analysis. The conventional doctrine is that there is such an important moral difference between the two that, although the latter is sometimes permissible, the former is always forbidden. This doctrine may be challenged for several reasons. First of all, active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia, Secondly, the conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds. Thirdly, the doctrine rests on a distinction between killing and letting die that itself has no moral importance. Fourthly, the most common arguments in favor of the doctrine are invalid. I therefore suggest that the American Medical Association policy statement that endorses this doctrine is unsound.

American Medical Association↗
PubMed1992

'Aid-in-dying' and the taking of human life.

In several US states, the legalisation of euthanasia has become a question for voters to decide in public referenda. This democratic approach in politics is consistent with notions of personal autonomy in medicine, but the right of choice does not mean all choices are morally equal. A presumption against the taking of human life is embedded in the formative moral traditions of society; human life does not have absolute value, but we do and should impose a strict burden of justification for exceptions to the presumption, as exemplified by the moral criteria invoked to justify self-defence, capital punishment, or just war. These criteria can illuminate whether another exception should be carved out for doctor-assisted suicide or active euthanasia. It does not seem, in the United States at any rate, that all possible alternatives to affirm the control and dignity of the dying patient and to relieve pain and suffering, short of taking life, have been exhausted. Moreover, the procedural safeguards built into many proposals for legalised euthanasia would likely be undone by the sorry state of the US health care system, with its lack of universal access to care, chronic cost-containment ills, a litigious climate, and socioeconomic barriers to care. There remains, however, common ground in the quest for humane care of the dying.

Advance Directives↗
PubMed1992

Euthanasia and abortion: personality correlates for the decision to terminate life.

The study addresses three research questions: (a) How well do level of conservatism and religiosity predict attitudes toward passive and active euthanasia? (b) What is the relationship between attitudes toward abortion and attitudes toward euthanasia? (c) How do personality variables relate differentially to these attitudes? Subjects were 168 Australian adults (68 men, 100 women). Initial analysis indicated no sex differences in attitudes toward the study's criterion variables. Descriptive statistics indicated general support for active and passive euthanasia and for abortion, although the majority of the respondents were found to be more accepting of passive than of active euthanasia. Multiple regression analyses indicated that level of conservatism was the most consistent predictor of attitudes toward euthanasia and abortion, whereas religiosity was found significantly to predict attitudes toward abortion only.

Abortion, Induced↗