Suppr超能文献

协助自杀和自愿安乐死:医生的角色矛盾。

Assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia: role contradictions for physicians.

机构信息

Royal Bournemouth Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

出版信息

Clin Med (Lond). 2010 Aug;10(4):323-5. doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.10-4-323.

Abstract

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.

摘要

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。

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