Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Trust increases euthanasia acceptance: a multilevel analysis using the European Values Study.Vanessa Köneke - 2014 - BMC Medical Ethics 15 (1):86.
    This study tests how various kinds of trust impact attitudes toward euthanasia among the general public. The indication that trust might have an impact on euthanasia attitudes is based on the slippery slope argument, which asserts that allowing euthanasia might lead to abuses and involuntary deaths. Adopting this argument usually leads to less positive attitudes towards euthanasia. Tying in with this, it is assumed here that greater trust diminishes such slippery slope fears, and thereby increases euthanasia acceptance.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Euthanasia Education for Health Professionals in Turkey: students change their opinions.Erdem Özkara, Murat Civaner, Sema Oğlak & Atilla Senih Mayda - 2004 - Nursing Ethics 11 (3):290-297.
    The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of euthanasia education on the opinions of health sciences students. It was performed among 111 final year students at the College of Health Sciences, Dokuz Eylül University, IRzmir, Turkey. These students train to become paramedical professionals and health technicians. Fifteen hours of educational training concerning ethical values and euthanasia was planned and the students’ opinions about euthanasia were sought before and after the course. Statistical analyses of the data were performed (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The Ethicist as Language Czar, or Cop: “End of Life” v. “Ending Life”. [REVIEW]Tom Koch - 2013 - HEC Forum 25 (4):345-359.
    Bioethics promises a considered, unprejudicial approach to areas of medical decision-making. It does this, in theory, from the perspective of moral philosophy. But the promise of fairly considered, insightful commentary fails when word choices used in ethical arguments are prejudicial, foreclosing rather than opening an area of moral discourse. The problem is illustrated through an analysis of the language of The Royal Society Expert Panel Report: End of Life Decision Making advocating medical termination.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark