• 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

富有、白人且脆弱:在安乐死辩论中重新思考压迫性社会化

Rich, white, and vulnerable: rethinking oppressive socialization in the euthanasia debate.

作者信息

Krag Erik

机构信息

Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville, Edwardsville, Illinois, USA

出版信息

J Med Philos. 2014 Aug;39(4):406-29. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhu026. Epub 2014 Jun 26.

DOI:10.1093/jmp/jhu026
PMID:24973246
Abstract

Anita Silvers (1998) has criticized those who argue that members of marginalized groups are vulnerable to a special threat posed by physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and voluntary active euthanasia (VAE). She argues that paternalistic measures prohibiting PAS/VAE in order to protect these groups only serve to marginalize them further by characterizing them as belonging to a definitively weak class. I offer a new conception of vulnerability, one that demonstrates how rich, educated, white males, who are typically regarded as having their autonomy enhanced by their social status, are just as, if not more, vulnerable to threats posed by PAS/VAE as a result of the harmful social messages at work just below the surface of contemporary Western culture. I use this new conception of vulnerability to reinforce arguments for continued statutory prohibitions on PAS/VAE.

摘要

安妮塔·西尔弗斯(1998年)批评了那些认为边缘化群体成员容易受到医生协助自杀(PAS)和自愿安乐死(VAE)所构成的特殊威胁的人。她认为,为了保护这些群体而禁止PAS/VAE的家长式措施,只会通过将他们描述为属于一个绝对弱势的阶层,进一步边缘化他们。我提出了一种关于脆弱性的新观念,它表明,那些通常被认为因其社会地位而增强了自主性的富有、受过教育的白人男性,由于当代西方文化表面之下起作用的有害社会信息,同样(如果不是更)容易受到PAS/VAE所构成的威胁。我利用这种关于脆弱性的新观念来强化继续对PAS/VAE进行法定禁止的论点。

相似文献

1
Rich, white, and vulnerable: rethinking oppressive socialization in the euthanasia debate.富有、白人且脆弱:在安乐死辩论中重新思考压迫性社会化
J Med Philos. 2014 Aug;39(4):406-29. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhu026. Epub 2014 Jun 26.
2
Voluntary active euthanasia and the doctrine of double effect: a view from Germany.自愿主动安乐死与双重效应原则:来自德国的观点。
Health Care Anal. 2004 Sep;12(3):225-40. doi: 10.1023/B:HCAN.0000044929.45563.4f.
3
Voluntary euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and the right to do wrong.自愿安乐死、医生协助自杀与做错事的权利。
HEC Forum. 2013 Sep;25(3):229-43. doi: 10.1007/s10730-013-9208-2.
4
Ethical issues in suicide, assisted suicide, and euthanasia.自杀、协助自杀及安乐死中的伦理问题。
J S C Med Assoc. 1996 Feb;92(2):48-53; discussion 54-7.
5
Autonomy-based arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: a critique.基于自主性的反对医生协助自杀和安乐死的论据:一项批判
Med Health Care Philos. 2013 May;16(2):225-30. doi: 10.1007/s11019-011-9365-5.
6
Physician assisted suicide: the great Canadian euthanasia debate.医生协助自杀:伟大的加拿大安乐死辩论。
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2013 Sep-Dec;36(5-6):522-31. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2013.06.002. Epub 2013 Jul 13.
7
One physician's perspective: euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
Health Care Anal. 2004 Sep;12(3):215-23. doi: 10.1023/B:HCAN.0000044928.73860.d3.
8
Slippery-slope objections to legalizing physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia.对医生协助自杀和自愿安乐死合法化的滑坡论证式反对意见。
Public Aff Q. 2005 Apr;19(2):143-61.
9
Rethinking voluntary euthanasia.
J Med Philos. 2013 Dec;38(6):674-95. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jht045. Epub 2013 Oct 30.
10
Avoiding a fate worse than death: an argument for legalising voluntary physician-based euthanasia.避免比死亡更糟糕的命运:支持基于医生协助的自愿安乐死合法化的理由。
J Law Med. 2012 Sep;20(1):184-203.

引用本文的文献

1
Physician-Assisted Suicide in Dementia: Paradoxes, Pitfalls and the Need for Prudence.痴呆症中的医生协助自杀:悖论、陷阱与审慎之需
Front Sociol. 2021 Dec 22;6:815233. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2021.815233. eCollection 2021.
2
First Do No Harm: Euthanasia of Patients with Dementia in Belgium.切勿伤害:比利时痴呆症患者的安乐死
J Med Philos. 2016 Feb;41(1):74-89. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhv031. Epub 2015 Dec 8.