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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1989

Moral dilemma: to kill or allow to die?

The thesis of this paper is that while allowing a person to die with care can be morally justified in particular cases, the option of mercy killing can never be morally defended. There is a significant moral difference between these two concepts. Furthermore, the wedge argument, the medical fallibility argument, and the medical care and trust argument provide cogent and convincing reasons for maintaining a legal distinction between mercy killing and letting a person die.

Double Effect Principle↗
PubMed2000

Consequentialism and the slippery slope: a response to Clark.

Michael Clark has recently argued that the slippery slope argument against voluntary euthanasia is 'entirely consequentialist' and that its use to justify continued prohibition of voluntary euthanasia involves a failure to treat patients who request assistance in ending their lives as ends in themselves. This article argues that in fact the slippery slope is consistent with most forms of deontology, and that it need not involve any violation of the principle that people should be treated as ends, depending upon how that principle is construed. It is concluded that supporters of voluntary euthanasia cannot dismiss the slippery slope argument on the basis of deontological principles but must take seriously the consequences that it postulates and engage in factual argument about their likely extent and about the likely effectiveness of any proposed safeguards.

Ethical Theory↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Legalization of physician-assisted suicide: point/counterpoint.

The issues of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have been debated in classrooms, courtrooms, medical and ethical journals, on television talk shows, and at the bedsides of patients. This article discusses in broad perspective the topic of physician-assisted suicide. The important ethical, legal, and moral issues are presented in a debate format. The presentation of the arguments is by no means exhaustive but rather reflective of current nursing, medical, and ethical journal articles published on the topic of physician-assisted suicide. An attempt has been made to balance each argument without bias, thus allowing the reader to make an individual judgment.

Beneficence↗
PubMedDate not supplied

A voice against physician-assisted suicide.

In the early hours of November 14, 1996, Card. Joseph Bernardin died of pancreatic cancer. The Archbishop of Chicago approached death not in fear but as a "transition from earthly life to life eternal." One of his last public acts was writing a letter to the U.S. Supreme Court. He asked the justices to reject arguments that the dying have a right to physician-assisted suicide. In two powerful and poignant pages, the cardinal concisely summarizes the legal and policy arguments against legitimizing the purposeful facilitation of death by healthcare providers. CHA attached his letter to the amicus curiae brief it filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Vacco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg, the two physician-assisted suicide cases to be decided by the Court this term (see "CHA Amicus Curiae Brief on Physician-Assisted Suicide," p. 36). In this article we provide context for the thoughts expressed in Card. Bernardin's letter, excerpted below, and describe how this letter makes a persuasive legal argument against physician-assisted suicide.

Catholicism↗
PubMed2000

How to argue against active euthanasia.

Most arguments against active euthanasia, as do most arguments in applied ethics generally, take place within the framework of what can broadly be referred to as a modern, as opposed to an ancient, approach to moral theory. In this paper, I argue that this fact works to the disadvantage of opponents of active euthanasia, and that if there is a successful argument against active euthanasia, it will be of the latter sort. In Part I, I attempt to clarify the distinction between modern and ancient approaches with which I am concerned. In Part II, I attempt to show that any argument against active euthanasia that is of the first sort is bound to fail. In Part III, I propose an argument against active euthanasia of the second sort that I believe has a better chance for success. In Part IV, I consider some objections that can be raised against this argument and attempt to show how they can be overcome.

Ethical Analysis↗
PubMed2003

Voluntary euthanasia: a utilitarian perspective.

Belgium legalised voluntary euthanasia in 2002, thus ending the long isolation of the Netherlands as the only country in which doctors could openly give lethal injections to patients who have requested help in dying. Meanwhile in Oregon, in the United States, doctors may prescribe drugs for terminally ill patients, who can use them to end their life--if they are able to swallow and digest them. But despite President Bush's oft-repeated statements that his philosophy is to 'trust individuals to make the right decisions' and his opposition to 'distant bureaucracies', his administration is doing its best to prevent Oregonians acting in accordance with a law that its voters have twice ratified. The situation regarding voluntary euthanasia around the world is therefore very much in flux. This essay reviews ethical arguments regarding voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide from a utilitarian perspective. I shall begin by asking why it is normally wrong to kill an innocent person, and whether these reasons apply to aiding a person who, when rational and competent, asks to be killed or given the means to commit suicide. Then I shall consider more specific utilitarian arguments for and against permitting voluntary euthanasia.

Belgium↗
PubMed1993

The great slippery-slope argument.

Whenever some form of beneficent killing--for example, voluntary euthanasia--is advocated, the proposal is greeted with a flood of slippery-slope arguments warning of the dangers of a Nazi-style slide into genocide. This paper is an attempt systematically to evaluate arguments of this kind. Although there are slippery-slope arguments that are sound and convincing, typical formulations of the Nazi-invoking argument are found to be seriously deficient both in logical rigour and in the social history and psychology required as a scholarly underpinning. As an antidote, an attempt is made both to identify some of the likely causes of genocide and to isolate some of the more modest but legitimate fears that lie behind slippery-slope arguments of this kind.

Beneficence↗