Acts and omissions: killing and letting die.
نویسنده
چکیده
Gillon asks what, if any, moral importance resides in the distinction between killing and letting die in the context of medical care. He considers and rejects the acts and omissions doctrine, which claims that actions (killing) resulting in some undesirable end are in general morally worse than failures to act (allowing to die) that have the same result. He also refutes the argument that the moral distinction between killing and letting die is one of harming versus benefitting, and that a physician has a responsibility not to harm (kill) a patient but no duty to help (keep alive). Gillon concludes by discussing the moral claims upon which the Roman Catholic rejection of the acts and omissions doctrine is based, which are the subjects of his next British Medical Journal article on medical ethics.
منابع مشابه
Causal authorship and the equality principle: a defence of the acts/omissions distinction in euthanasia.
This paper defends the acts/omissions distinction which underpins the present law on euthanasia, from various criticisms (including from within the judiciary itself), and aims to show that it is supported by fundamental principles. After rejecting arguments that deny the coherence and/or legal relevance of the distinction, the discussion proceeds to focus on the causal relationship between the ...
متن کاملThe medical ethics of physician-assisted suicide.
Absolute prohibitions of physician assistance in suicide have long been canonical in medical ethics, but a powerful reformation of views on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is now underway in several countries. The law on physician-assisted suicide in the state of Oregon, social approval of euthanasia in the Netherlands, and the (in principle) legality of active euthanasia in Japan are...
متن کاملمعمای واگن و تلویحات آن برای اتانازی فعال و غیر فعال
Theologians describe the difference between active and passive euthanasia as in the former, we kill hopeless patients terribly suffering from an incurable disease and in the latter, and we let them die. The present research aimed at exploring for a solution to an ethical dilemma by which the difference between foundational concepts of the two types of euthanasia can be examined. Another objecti...
متن کاملKilling, letting die and euthanasia.
Medical ethicists debate whether or not the moral assessment of cases of euthanasia should depend on whether the patient is 'killed' or 'allowed to die'. The usual presupposition is that a clear distinction between killing and letting die can be drawn so that this substantive question is not begged. I contend that the categorisation of cases of instances of killing rather than as instances of l...
متن کاملGraham Oddie Killing and Letting-die: Bare Differences and Clear Differences
Is killing in itself worse than letting-die? In medical practice, in law, and in folk morality the answer is pretty clearly yes – and the fact that it is worse is typically held to make a difference to what it is morally permissible to do. Some interesting thought experiments, however, suggest that in itself killing is no worse than letting die. These thought experiments typically involve the m...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- British medical journal
دوره 292 6513 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 1984