Royal Bournemouth Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.
Clin Med (Lond). 2010 Aug;10(4):323-5. doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.10-4-323.
It is widely assumed by the general public that if assisted suicide (AS) or euthanasia (VE) were legalised doctors must be essentially involved in the whole process including prescribing the medication and (in euthanasia) administering it. This paper explores some reasons for this assumption and argues that it flatly contradicts what it means to be a doctor. The paper is thus not mainly concerned with the ethics of AS/VE but rather with the concept of a doctor that has evolved since the time of Hippocrates to current professional guidance reflected in healthcare law. The paper argues that the most common recent argument for AS/VE--that patients have a right to control when and how they die--in fact points to the involvement not of doctors but of legal agencies as decision makers plus technicians as agents.
公众普遍认为,如果协助自杀(AS)或安乐死(VE)合法化,医生必须从本质上参与整个过程,包括开出处方和(在安乐死中)给药。本文探讨了这种假设的一些原因,并认为这与医生的含义完全相悖。因此,本文主要关注的不是 AS/VE 的伦理问题,而是自希波克拉底时代以来演变至今的医生概念,以及体现在医疗保健法中的当前专业指导。本文认为,最近 AS/VE 最常见的论点——患者有权控制自己何时以及如何死亡——实际上指向的不是医生,而是法律机构作为决策者,再加上技术人员作为代理人。