Barutta Joaquín, Vollmann Jochen
Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany Department of Medical Humanities, Italian Hospital University, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
J Med Ethics. 2015 Aug;41(8):652-4. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2013-101953. Epub 2015 Jan 22.
Even among advocates of legalising physician-assisted death, many argue that this should be done only once palliative care has become widely available. Meanwhile, according to them, physician-assisted death should be banned. Four arguments are often presented to support this claim, which we call the argument of lack of autonomy, the argument of existing alternatives, the argument of unfair inequalities and the argument of the antagonism between physician-assisted death and palliative care. We argue that although these arguments provide strong reasons to take appropriate measures to guarantee access to good quality palliative care to everyone who needs it, they do not justify a ban on physician-assisted death until we have achieved this goal.
即使在主张医生协助死亡合法化的支持者中,许多人也认为,只有在姑息治疗广泛可得之后,才应该这样做。与此同时,他们认为,应该禁止医生协助死亡。人们经常提出四个论点来支持这一主张,我们称之为缺乏自主性的论点、现有替代方案的论点、不公平不平等的论点以及医生协助死亡与姑息治疗之间的对抗性论点。我们认为,尽管这些论点为采取适当措施以确保每个有需要的人都能获得高质量的姑息治疗提供了有力理由,但在我们实现这一目标之前,它们并不能成为禁止医生协助死亡的正当理由。