Consistent Liberalism does not Require Active Euthanasia
I argue that classical liberalism' does not sanction any easy permissiveness about suicide and active euthanasia. I will use liberal arguments to argue that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is real and that assisted suicide is, at the very least, deeply troubling when view...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Gargar...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
[2019]
|
| En: |
Heythrop journal
Año: 2019, Volumen: 60, Número: 6, Páginas: 895-909 |
| Clasificaciones IxTheo: | NCH Ética de la medicina TJ Edad Moderna TK Período contemporáneo VA Filosofía |
| Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (Resolving-System) Volltext (doi) |
| Sumario: | I argue that classical liberalism' does not sanction any easy permissiveness about suicide and active euthanasia. I will use liberal arguments to argue that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is real and that assisted suicide is, at the very least, deeply troubling when viewed from an authentic liberal perspective. The usual argument for active euthanasia is a utilitarian, not a liberal argument, as recent calls to eliminate the conscientious objection rights of doctors who refuse participation in such procedures plainly demonstrate. The paper focuses on arguments in the public sphere (such as those articulated by James Rachels). |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1468-2265 |
| Obras secundarias: | Enthalten in: Heythrop journal
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/heyj.13014 |