In this chapter, I consider the idea that physician-assisted death might come into question in the cases of psychiatric patients who are incapable of making autonomous choices about ending their lives. I maintain that the main arguments for physician-assisted death found in recent medical ethical literature support physician-assisted death in some of those cases. After assessing several possible criticisms of what I have argued, I conclude that the idea that physicianassisted death can be acceptable in some cases of psychiatric patients (...) who lack autonomy ought to be taken into account in assessing the moral and legal acceptability of physician-assisted death. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungDie jüngste höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung zur Selbstbestimmung der Patienten und zur Normierung medizinischer Handlungen am Lebensende hat eine intensive Debatte ausgelöst. Das Urteil und die akademisch vorgetragene Kritik werden einer grundlegenden medizinethischen Analyse unterworfen. Sie betrifft die objektive Eingrenzung der Zulässigkeit einer Behandlungsbegrenzung und die Subsumtion des Wachkomas als irreversibel tödliches Grundleiden, das ärztliche Ermessen bei der Indikationsstellung, die normative Einordnung einer Ernährungstherapie am Lebensende und die Verbindlichkeit von Patientenverfügungen. Die medizinethische Kritik offenbart eine unzureichende Wahrnehmung medizinischer und medizinethischer professioneller Dokumente (...) und den Rückgriff auf medizinethisch veraltete Konzeptionen der Sterbehilfe durch das Gericht. Die Folge ist eine fehlerhafte Subsumtion der Wachkomapatienten in die Kategorie irreversibel tödlicher Erkrankungen und eine inhaltliche Schwächung der Verbindlichkeit von Patientenverfügungen. Beides bedarf dringend der Korrektur. (shrink)

Objectives—To assess whether UK and US health care professionals share the views of medical ethicists about medical futility, withdrawing/withholding treatment, ordinary/extraordinary interventions, and the doctrine of double effectDesign, subjects and setting–A 138-item attitudinal questionnaire completed by 469 UK nurses studying the Open University course on “Death and Dying” was compared with a similar questionnaire administered to 759 US nurses and 687 US doctors taking the Hastings Center course on “Decisions near the End of Life”.Results–Practitioners accept the relevance of concepts widely (...) disparaged by bioethicists: double effect, medical futility, and the distinctions between heroic/ordinary interventions and withholding/ withdrawing treatment. Within the UK nurses' group a “rationalist” axis of respondents who describe themselves as having “no religion” are closer to the bioethics consensus on withholding and withdrawing treatment.Conclusions—Professionals' beliefs differ substantially from the recommendations of their professional bodies and from majority opinion in bioethics. Bioethicists should be cautious about assuming that their opinions will be readily accepted by practitioners. (shrink)

Ethical, Religious and Legal Arguments in the Current Debate over Euthanasia in Spain In the last ten years, there have been several cases in Spain (Ramón Sampedro, Leganés, Jorge León that have led to an intense social debate on euthanasia. The recent case of Inmaculada Echevarría, a woman suffering from a serious disease that kept her immobilized in bed, has revived the debate on euthanasia in Spain. On 18 October 2006 she held a press conference and publicly asked to be (...) disconnected from the ventilator that kept her alive. After a long ethical, religious, legal, and social debate, the patient was disconnected on 14 March 2007 after being adequately sedated. As a consequence, the patient died. In our paper we defend the need for a radical and intercultural democracy and present the main ethical, religious and legal arguments on euthanasia that are being posed in Spain and in Europe as a debate that should help to build a radical and intercultural democracy at a European level. (shrink)

In some medical cases there is a moral distinction between killing and letting die, but in others there is not. In this paper I present an original and principled account of the moral distinction between killing and letting die. The account provides both an explanation of the moral distinction and an explanation for why the distinction does not always hold. If these explanations are correct, the moral distinction between killing and letting die must be taken seriously in medical contexts. Defeasibly, (...) when an agent kills she takes responsibility, but when an agent lets die she does not take responsibility. Therein lies the moral distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction, however, is defeated when an agent is already responsible for the surrounding situation. In such cases, killing does not involve taking any further responsibility and letting die does not avoid taking any responsibility. Medical examples are frequently complicated because patients' autonomous choices impact upon medical practitioners' surrounding responsibility. (shrink)

It is widely accepted in clinical ethics that removing a patient from a ventilator at the patient’s request is ethically permissible. This constitutes voluntary passive euthanasia. However, voluntary active euthanasia, such as giving a patient a lethal overdose with the intention of ending that patient’s life, is ethically proscribed, as is assisted suicide, such as providing a patient with lethal pills or a lethal infusion. Proponents of voluntary active euthanasia and assisted suicide have argued that the distinction between killing and (...) letting die is flawed and that there is no real difference between actively ending someone’s life and "merely" allowing them to die. This paper shows that, although this view is correct, there is even less of a distinction than is commonly acknowledged in the literature. It does so by suggesting a new perspective that more accurately reflects the moral features of end-of-life situations: if a patient is mentally competent and wants to die, his body itself constitutes unwarranted life support unfairly prolonging his or her mental life. (shrink)

Most legal analyses of selective nontreatment of seriously ill children centre on the question of whether it is in a child’s best interests to be kept alive in the face of extreme suffering and/or an intolerable quality of life. Courts have resisted any direct confrontation with the question of whether the child’s death is in his or her best interests. Nevertheless, representations of death may have an important role to play in this field of jurisprudence. The prevailing philosophy is to (...) configure death as a release from a futile or painful existence and/or as a dignified end in an objectively hopeless situation. However, there can be disagreement about the meaning of death in these settings. Some parents object that death would be premature or that it represents a culpable neglect of their child. A closer examination of these discordant interpretations allows for a better comprehension of the cultural understandings that underscore clinical and legal accounts of death following end-of-life decisions. (shrink)

Through a critical reading of the English decision Ms B v An NHS Hospital Trust, and the more recent Australian decision, Brightwater Care Group v Rossiter, this article examines three fictions that have been crucial in protecting the choice to die in the context of treatment withdrawal whilst maintaining a prohibition on assisting individuals who wish to die. These are: a competent patient can refuse medical treatment for any or no reason, even if it means they will die; the doctor’s (...) removal of life-supporting technology does not entail responsibility for the resulting death; and such deaths are natural deaths. The argument developed here is that when patients and doctors disagree about whether and how death should occur in the treatment withdrawal context, the conceptual space created by law to distance these deaths from culpable deaths is threatened. It is in these moments of dispute that the fictions are challenged, their fragility exposed, and law’s underlying ambivalence about the choice to die revealed. (shrink)