• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

拒绝治疗或停止治疗以及姑息治疗加速死亡:医生不承担谋杀法律责任的真正原因。

Withholding or withdrawing treatment and palliative treatment hastening death: the real reason why doctors are not held legally liable for murder.

出版信息

S Afr Med J. 2014 Feb;104(2):102-3. doi: 10.7196/samj.7405.

DOI:10.7196/samj.7405
PMID:24893534
Abstract

Doctors who hasten the termination of the lives of their patients by withholding or withdrawing treatment or prescribing a potentially fatal palliative dose of medication satisfy the elements of intention and causation of a charge of murder against them. However, the courts have held that, for policy reasons based on 'society's legal convictions', such conduct is not unlawful if the patient consented to it or medical treatment would be futile or palliative treatment may hasten death. Doctors are not held liable for murder because society regards their omissions or acts as lawful--not because they did not have the intention in law to kill or did not cause the death of their patients.

摘要

医生通过 withholding 或 withdrawing treatment 或 prescribing 潜在致命的姑息性药物剂量来加速患者的生命终结,满足谋杀指控的意图和因果关系要素。然而,法院认为,基于“社会的法律信念”的政策原因,如果患者同意或医疗治疗无效或姑息性治疗可能加速死亡,这种行为不违法。医生不会因谋杀而承担责任,因为社会认为他们的疏忽或行为是合法的——不是因为他们在法律上没有杀人的意图或没有导致患者死亡。

相似文献

1
Withholding or withdrawing treatment and palliative treatment hastening death: the real reason why doctors are not held legally liable for murder.拒绝治疗或停止治疗以及姑息治疗加速死亡:医生不承担谋杀法律责任的真正原因。
S Afr Med J. 2014 Feb;104(2):102-3. doi: 10.7196/samj.7405.
2
Palliative care: preventing misconceptions.姑息治疗:防止误解。
S Afr Med J. 2014 Apr;104(4):260-1. doi: 10.7196/samj.8093.
3
Prof. McQuoid-Mason responds.麦夸德 - 梅森教授做出回应。
S Afr Med J. 2014 Apr;104(4):261.
4
The legal bounds of physician conduct hastening death.医生加速死亡行为的法律界限。
Buffalo Law Rev. 2000 Winter;48(1):83-173.
5
[Euthanasia as legally liable homicide or sanctioned assisted suicide].[作为应承担法律责任的杀人行为或被认可的协助自杀的安乐死]
Z Gerontol Geriatr. 1995 Jul-Aug;28(4):279-84.
6
Compassionate care--or murder?同情性护理——还是谋杀?
Med Econ. 1999 Jun 7;76(11):50-2, 54, 59 passim.
7
Comparing doctors' legal compliance across three Australian states for decisions whether to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment: does different law lead to different decisions?比较澳大利亚三个州的医生在决定是否 withholding 或 withdrawing 维持生命的医疗treatment 时的法律合规性:不同的法律是否会导致不同的决策?
BMC Palliat Care. 2017 Nov 28;16(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s12904-017-0249-1.
8
The termination of life-support measures and the law of murder.生命维持措施的终止与谋杀法
Mod Law Rev. 1978 Jul;41(4):423-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.1978.tb00809.x.
9
Is sedation without hydration or nourishment in terminal care lawful?临终关怀中不进行补液或营养支持的镇静是否合法?
Med Leg J. 1994;62(Pt. 4):198-201. doi: 10.1177/002581729406200405.
10
[Withholding medical care as a physical injury--manslaughter and withdrawal of treatment].[将拒绝医疗作为身体伤害——过失杀人与停止治疗]
Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich. 1998 Oct;92(8-9):548-54.

引用本文的文献

1
Diagnosis of death guidelines for South Africa - timely and necessary.南非死亡诊断指南——及时且必要。
South Afr J Crit Care. 2021 Mar 17;37(1). doi: 10.7196/SAJCC.2021.v37i1.485. eCollection 2021.
2
Nonconsensual withdrawal of nutrition and hydration in prolonged disorders of consciousness: authoritarianism and trustworthiness in medicine.在长期意识障碍中未经同意停止营养和水分供应:医学中的专制主义与可信度
Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2014 Nov 7;9:16. doi: 10.1186/1747-5341-9-16.