Institutional refusal to offer assisted dying: A response to Shadd and Shadd
Ever since medical assistance in dying (MAID) became legal in Canada in 2016, controversy has enveloped the refusal by many faith-based institutions to allow this service on their premises. In a recent article in this journal, Philip and Joshua Shadd have proposed ‘changing the conversation’ on this...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Outros Autores: | |
| Tipo de documento: | Recurso Electrónico Artigo |
| Idioma: | Inglês |
| Verificar disponibilidade: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Publicado em: |
[2019]
|
| Em: |
Bioethics
Ano: 2019, Volume: 33, Número: 8, Páginas: 970-972 |
| Classificações IxTheo: | KBQ América do Norte KDB Igreja católica NCH Ética da medicina RK Diaconia |
| Outras palavras-chave: | B
medical assistance in dying
B institutional refusal B Conscientious Objection B Palliative Care B assisted dying |
| Acesso em linha: |
Volltext (Publisher) Volltext (doi) |
| Resumo: | Ever since medical assistance in dying (MAID) became legal in Canada in 2016, controversy has enveloped the refusal by many faith-based institutions to allow this service on their premises. In a recent article in this journal, Philip and Joshua Shadd have proposed ‘changing the conversation’ on this issue, reframing it as an exercise not of conscience but of an institutional right of self-governance. This reframing, they claim, will serve to show how health-care institutions may be justified in refusing to provide MAID on moral or religious grounds. I argue that it will not make it easier to justify institutional refusal, and is likely to make it harder. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-8519 |
| Reference: | Kritik von "Institutional non-participation in assisted dying (2019)"
|
| Obras secundárias: | Enthalten in: Bioethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12641 |
