Are withholding and withdrawing therapy always morally equivalent? A reply to Sulmasy and Sugarman
This paper argues that Sulmasy and Sugarman have not succeeded in showing a moral difference between withholding and withdrawing treatment. In particular, they have misunderstood historical entitlement theory, which does not automatically prefer a first occupant by just acquisition.
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
BMJ Publ.
1994
|
In: |
Journal of medical ethics
Year: 1994, Volume: 20, Issue: 4, Pages: 223-224 |
Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
Summary: | This paper argues that Sulmasy and Sugarman have not succeeded in showing a moral difference between withholding and withdrawing treatment. In particular, they have misunderstood historical entitlement theory, which does not automatically prefer a first occupant by just acquisition. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1473-4257 |
Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of medical ethics
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1136/jme.20.4.223 |