Suppr超能文献

安乐死的伦理:倡导者的观点。

The ethics of euthanasia: advocates' perspectives.

作者信息

de Haan Jurriaan

机构信息

Faculty of Law, University of the Netherlands Antilles, Jan Noorduynweg 111, Curacao, Netherlands Antilles.

出版信息

Bioethics. 2002 Apr;16(2):154-72. doi: 10.1111/1467-8519.00276.

Abstract

The Netherlands is currently the only country in the world in which euthanasia is legally permissible. More specifically, Dutch law (briefly explained) allows that a doctor terminates the life of a patient of hers on his voluntary, well-considered and sustained request, if he is suffering unbearably and hopelessly. The aim of this paper is to reconstruct the Dutch debate on the moral permissibility of euthanasia so as to clarify and strengthen the various views that can be advanced in support of euthanasia. On the one view, The Pure Autonomy View (TPAV), the justification of euthanasia rests solely on the principle of respect for autonomy. That is, the reason for performing and permitting euthanasia is the patient's voluntary, well-considered and sustained, in one word: autonomous, request for euthanasia. On the alternative view, The Joint View (TJV), the principle of respect for autonomy and the principle of beneficence morally justify euthanasia together. That is, euthanasia is ethical if and partly because, since the patient is suffering unbearably and hopelessly, euthanasia is in his interest. According to this paper, there is no easy argument for one of these views rather than the other. Instead, as yet both TPAV and TJV seem inherently problematic. TPAV is unable to give a doctor a reason for performing euthanasia that appeals to her in her capacity as a doctor, such as relief of suffering. And TJV begs the question--for example, if a state were to legalize euthanasia on grounds of TJV, it would force the view upon its citizens that it may be in a person's interest to die.

摘要

荷兰是目前世界上唯一在法律上允许安乐死的国家。更具体地说,荷兰法律(简要解释)规定,如果患者自愿、经过深思熟虑且持续提出请求,并且正承受着无法忍受的痛苦且毫无希望,医生可以结束其生命。本文的目的是重构荷兰关于安乐死道德可允许性的辩论,以阐明并强化支持安乐死的各种观点。一种观点是“纯粹自主观点”(TPAV),安乐死的正当性仅基于尊重自主原则。也就是说,实施和允许安乐死的理由是患者自愿、经过深思熟虑且持续的——简而言之,自主的——安乐死请求。另一种观点是“联合观点”(TJV),尊重自主原则和行善原则共同在道德上为安乐死提供正当理由。也就是说,安乐死在伦理上是合理的,部分原因在于,由于患者正承受着无法忍受的痛苦且毫无希望,安乐死符合其利益。根据本文观点,支持其中一种观点而非另一种观点并没有简单的论证。相反,目前TPAV和TJV似乎都存在内在问题。TPAV无法为医生提供一个以其医生身份能吸引她的实施安乐死的理由,比如减轻痛苦。而TJV则存在回避问题的情况——例如,如果一个国家基于TJV将安乐死合法化,它会将死亡可能符合一个人利益的观点强加给其公民。

相似文献

1
The ethics of euthanasia: advocates' perspectives.
Bioethics. 2002 Apr;16(2):154-72. doi: 10.1111/1467-8519.00276.
2
Unrequested termination of life: is it permissible?
Bioethics. 1993 Jul;7(4):330-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.1993.tb00223.x.
3
Euthanasia: a contemporary moral quandary.
Lancet. 1989 Dec 2;2(8675):1321-3. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(89)91921-1.
4
Supportive care and euthanasia--an ethical dilemma?
Support Care Cancer. 1998 Mar;6(2):114-9. doi: 10.1007/s005200050144.
5
The right to die on the slippery slope.
Soc Theory Pract. 1982 Fall;8(3):285-328. doi: 10.5840/soctheorpract19828314.
6
Euthanasia.
Yale J Biol Med. 1992 Mar-Apr;65(2):121-9.
8
Neonatal euthanasia is unsupportable: the Groningen protocol should be abandoned.
Theor Med Bioeth. 2007;28(5):453-63. doi: 10.1007/s11017-007-9047-8.
9
Killing, letting die and moral perception.
Bioethics. 1994 Oct;8(4):312-28. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.1994.tb00262.x.
10
Euthanasia. Historical, ethical, and empiric perspectives.
Arch Intern Med. 1994 Sep 12;154(17):1890-901. doi: 10.1001/archinte.154.17.1890.

引用本文的文献

1
Tipping Point: Pathogenic Stress and the Biopolitics of Euthanasia.
Linacre Q. 2024 Oct 18:00243639241287918. doi: 10.1177/00243639241287918.
2
Normative account of Islamic bioethics in end-of-life care.
Glob Bioeth. 2022 Dec 6;33(1):133-154. doi: 10.1080/11287462.2022.2118977. eCollection 2022.
3
The value of life in English law: revered but not sacred?
Leg Stud (Soc Leg Scholars). 2016 Dec;36(4):658-682. doi: 10.1111/lest.12131. Epub 2016 Aug 15.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验