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...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Contributors: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Wiley-Blackwell
[2019]
|
| In: |
Bioethics
Year: 2019, Volume: 33, Issue: 8, Pages: 970-972 |
| IxTheo Classification: | KBQ North America KDB Roman Catholic Church NCH Medical ethics RK Charity work |
| Further subjects: | B
medical assistance in dying
B institutional refusal B Conscientious Objection B Palliative Care B assisted dying |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | 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)"
|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Bioethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12641 |