It is now widely accepted that a patient's ability to engage in autonomous decision-making can be seriously threatened when she denies significant aspects of her medical condition. In this paper I use a true case to reveal the harmful effects of physician denial upon patient autonomy and well-being. I suggest further that such physician denial may be more common than is generally acknowledged, since aspects of the contemporary medical ethos likely serve to reinforce rather than to undercut such denial.

Debate continues over the acts/omissions doctrine, and over the concepts of duty and charity. Such issues inform the debate over the moral permissibility of euthanasia. Recent papers have emphasised moral sensitivity, medical intuitions, and sub-standard palliative care as some of the factors which should persuade us to regard euthanasia as morally unacceptable. I argue that these lines of argument are conceptually misdirected and have no bearing on the bare permissibility of voluntary euthanasia. Further, some of the familiar slippery slope arguments (...) against voluntary euthanasia compromise the principle of autonomy to which both supporters and opponents of euthanasia adhere. I discuss a model for doctor/patient relationships which can be applied to cases which would be seen by all disputants as strong prima facie cases for euthanasia. I argue that in certain cases it will be ordinary medical practitioners who are duty-bound to assist death. (shrink)