Für die Argumentation von Moralphilosophen, die die Legalisierung der aktiven Sterbehilfe befürworten, spielt das Autonomieprinzip eine wichtige Rolle. Ihrer Auffassung nach verlangt der Respekt vor der Autonomie, die Entscheidung eines schwer kranken Menschen gegen die Fortsetzung des Lebens vorbehaltlos anzuerkennen. Dagegen haben verschiedene Theoretiker auf Gefahren hingewiesen, die die rechtliche Zulassung der Tötung auf Verlangen für die individuelle Autonomie mit sich bringt. Sobald der Kranke über die Möglichkeit der aktiven Sterbehilfe verfüge, falle ihm die Verantwortung für die Inanspruchnahme von Pflegeleistungen (...) zu. In der Folge könne u. a. von Seiten der Familie die Forderung an ihn gestellt werden, den vom Gesetzgeber eröffneten Ausweg zu nutzen und sie von der Last seiner Pflege zu befreien. Die Bedenken erscheinen insofern berechtigt, als Formen sozialen Zwangs vorstellbar sind, die eine freie Entscheidung des Patienten verhindern. Allerdings vermag weder das Verbot noch die Zulassung der aktiven Sterbehilfe eine autonome Entscheidung aller Individuen zu gewährleisten. Die Abwägung der Risiken, mit denen beide Optionen behaftet sind, spricht im Ergebnis für die Legalisierung der Tötung auf Verlangen. (shrink)

ABSTRACT In keeping with the pre‐eminent status accorded autonomy within Australia, Europe, and the United States, medical practice requires that patients authorize do‐not‐resuscitate (DNR) orders, intended to countermand the default practice in hospitals of instituting cardiopulmonary‐resuscitation (CPR) on all patients experiencing cardio‐pulmonary arrest. As patients typically do not make these decisions proactively, however, family members are often asked to act as surrogate decision‐makers and decide on the patient's behalf. Although the appropriateness of patients or their families having to decide about (...) the provision of CPR has been challenged, there has been little examination of how patients and their families talk about and negotiate such decisions, particularly in the context of the patient's imminent death. In this article, part of a larger study analysing interviews with 28 patients (13 female) with cancer within weeks of their death, and 20 others (predominantly family) attending, we argue that a common assumption underpinning participants' talk about the DNR decision (i.e. forgoing CPR) is that it requires a choice between life and death. Using illustrative examples, we demonstrate that in making decisions about CPR, patients and their families are implicitly required to make moral judgements about the value of the patient's life, including their relationships with significant others. We identify some implications of these empirical observations for the development of ethically appropriate policies and practices regarding patient autonomy and surrogacy at the end of life. (shrink)

Conflicts between bioethicists and disability theorists often arise over the permissibility of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Where mainstream bioethicists propose universalist guidelines that will direct action across a range of effectively disembodied situations, and take for granted that moral agency requires autonomy, feminist bioethicists demand a contextualisation of the circumstances under which moral decision making is conducted, and stress a more relational view of autonomy that does not require strict standards of independent agency. Nonetheless, neither traditional nor feminist perspectives (...) have fully engaged with the critique of disabled people that they are consistently subjected to discriminatory, even life-threatening, practice and policy in biomedical and health care. The paper revisits some of the issues that drive the often highly polarised debate between bioethicists and disability theorists around the question of end of life decisions involving disabled people. While many bioethicists have doubtless been indifferent to the difference that disability makes, I am also concerned that the very proper demand of disability activists and theorists to scrutinise all end of life decisions for signs of discrimination and even violence has segued into something damagingly restrictive that silences internal dissension and stifles external debate. Given that euthanasia and physician assisted suicide may be issues where conventional argument on either side will founder on deeply felt convictions, I make the radical move to speculate on an entirely different, quasi-Deleuzian, approach to the value of life in order to shake up entrenched positions, and begin to think differently. (shrink)