Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Should We Impose Quotas? Evaluating the “Disparate Impact” Argument against Legalization of Assisted Suicide.Ronald A. Lindsay - 2002 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 30 (1):6-16.
    Prominent among the arguments against the legalization of assisted suicide is the contention that legalization will have a disproportionately adverse, or “disparate,” impact on various vulnerable groups. There are many versions of this argument, with different advocates of this argument focusing on different vulnerable groups, and some advocates confusedly blending slippery slope and social justice concerns. Also, the weight placed on this argument by its various advocates is not uniform, with some including the argument in a list of multiple, apparently (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Damage compounded: Disparities, distrust, and disparate impact in end-of-life conflict resolution policies.Mary Ellen Wojtasiewicz - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (5):8 – 12.
    For a little more than a decade, professional organizations and healthcare institutions have attempted to develop guidelines and policies to deal with seemingly intractable conflicts that arise between clinicians and patients (or their proxies) over appropriate use of aggressive life-sustaining therapies in the face of low expectations of medical benefit. This article suggests that, although such efforts at conflict resolution are commendable on many levels, inadequate attention has been given to their potential negative effects upon particular groups of patients/proxies. Based (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   24 citations  
  • Should We Impose Quotas? Evaluating the "Disparate Impact" Argument Against Legalization of Assisted Suicide.Ronald A. Lindsay - 2002 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 30 (1):6-16.
    Prominent among the arguments against the legalization of assisted suicide is the contention that legalization will have a disproportionately adverse, or “disparate,” impact on various vulnerable groups. There are many versions of this argument, with different advocates of this argument focusing on different vulnerable groups, and some advocates confusedly blending slippery slope and social justice concerns. Also, the weight placed on this argument by its various advocates is not uniform, with some including the argument in a list of multiple, apparently (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations