And with good reason: Any argument on the subject usually devolves into a series of complex, abstract questions about morality and freedom of choice and so on. But while these ideas do have their place in the debate, they usually serve only to eclipse the other, better reasons we have for considering legalization—reasons that involve evidence, lived experience, and hard statistics. However, this argument ignores the data so hard it basically punches reason in the face.
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law Frey, and Sissela Bok.
Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Cambridge University Press, Something is amiss with the euthanasia debate, and I want to use a smart new book to try to show what it is.
The book is Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: For and Against, an eagerly awaited volume by three well-known philosophers, Gerald Dworkin, R. Dworkin and Frey are on the "for" side of the euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide debate; Bok is on the "against" side.
This little book provides an ideal occasion to comment on the structure of the debate over euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, a debate that has been developing over the past ten years or so in medical, academic, and public circles; indeed, this little book is a virtually perfect specimen for showing what is going on in these debates.
More important, however, it is also a near-perfect specimen for showing what, unfortunately, isn't going on. Of course, the Dworkin, Frey, and Bok book is just one of many, many current volumes in the controversies over euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, and it is a better book than many--among other things, in the distinction of its authors, in the clarity and rigor with which most of it is argued, and in its sensitivity to many of the deepest issues.
It discusses the principle of double effect, the risks of the slippery slope, the delicate matter of the integrity of the medical profession.
But while this little book serves as a model of the entire debate, it also serves to show what is wrong with this debate. The Structure of the Assisted-Dying Debate From its beginning, the structure of the debate over physician-aided dying has pitted arguments about self-determination or autonomy and about relief of suffering on the "for" side of the case, against arguments about the intrinsic wrongness of killing, the integrity of the medical profession, and damaging social effects--the slippery-slope argument--on the "against" side.
The debate can be mapped as detailed in Table 1. This structure then invites an extended back-and-forth pattern of objection and counterobjection, which I've described in previous works 1 as looking something like Table 2 on the following pages.
Of course, this is only a truncated skeleton of the back-and-forth, adversarial character of the for-and-against debate; it could be extended in great detail. Just the same, most of the points made by most of the major partisans in this debate can be plotted fairly specifically somewhere on this scheme.
Timothy Quill's defense of physician assistance in suicide as a "last resort" would fit under II. In the Dworkin, Frey, and Bok volume, Frey's spirited attack on the attempt of opponents of legalization to defend such practices as overuse of opiates and terminal sedation, while at the same time rejecting euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, [End Page ] [Begin Page ] would fall under II.
Indeed, virtually all of the If you would like to authenticate using a different subscribed institution that supports Shibboleth authentication or have your own login and password to Project MUSE, click 'Authenticate'. You are not currently authenticated.
View freely available titles:Euthanasia, as defined by many philosophers, should only be morally permissible in certain circumstances where it benefits the one who dies. It is a widely held belief that an act of euthanasia aims at benefiting the one who dies.
The argument of autonomy does not justify the legalization of voluntary active euthanasia. Autonomy requires that the individual lives according to rationally conceived decisions, and the free conditions by which these decisions or plans are made are compromised by the act of euthanasia. BibMe Free Bibliography & Citation Maker - MLA, APA, Chicago, Harvard.
Essay 1: Euthanasia In the essay, The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia, J. Gay-Williams states that euthanasia is inherently and morally wrong.
He further argues that euthanasia is the intentional and deliberate act of taking a person’s life. Euthanasia, A Quality of Life Choice. This intrinsic commonality lies at the heart of the euthanasia debate; as on one hand, the intention to end one’s life is seen as abhorrent, Where a conflict does exist is between autonomy and the active schools of euthanasia.
Here the law, “ provides the apparently irrational result that. 2 We want it - the autonomy argument. Some believe that every patient has a right to choose when to die. 3 We can control it - the public policy argument.
Proponents believe that euthanasia can be safely regulated by government legislation. WHAT IS EUTHANASIA Author.