Death - whose decision? Euthanasia and the terminally ill
In Australia and Oregon, USA, legislation to permit statutory sanctioned physician-assisted dying was enacted. However, opponents, many of whom held strong religious views, were successful with repeal in Australia. Similar opposition in Oregon was formidable, but ultimately lost in a 60-40% vote rea...
| Authors: | ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
BMJ Publ.
2000
|
| In: |
Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2000, Volume: 26, Issue: 2, Pages: 121-125 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000caa a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1816119725 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230427025705.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 220908s2000 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1136/jme.26.2.121 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)1816119725 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP1816119725 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 084 | |a 1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Fraser, I. |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Death - whose decision? Euthanasia and the terminally ill |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2000 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a In Australia and Oregon, USA, legislation to permit statutory sanctioned physician-assisted dying was enacted. However, opponents, many of whom held strong religious views, were successful with repeal in Australia. Similar opposition in Oregon was formidable, but ultimately lost in a 60-40% vote reaffirming physician-assisted dying. This paper examines the human dilemma which arises when technological advances in end-of-life medicine conflict with traditional and religious sanctity-of-life values. Society places high value on personal autonomy, particularly in the United States. We compare the potential for inherent contradictions and arbitrary decisions where patient autonomy is either permitted or forbidden. The broader implications for human experience resulting from new legislation in both Australia and Oregon are discussed. We conclude that allowing autonomy for the terminally ill, within circumscribed options, results in fewer ethical contradictions and greater preservation of dignity. | ||
| 700 | 1 | |a Walters, W. |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of medical ethics |d London : BMJ Publ., 1975 |g 26(2000), 2, Seite 121-125 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)323607802 |w (DE-600)2026397-1 |w (DE-576)260773972 |x 1473-4257 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:26 |g year:2000 |g number:2 |g pages:121-125 |
| 856 | |3 Volltext |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/27718467 |x JSTOR | ||
| 856 | |u https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/26/2/121.full.pdf |x unpaywall |z Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang |h publisher [open (via free pdf)] | ||
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.26.2.121 |x Resolving-System |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://jme.bmj.com/content/26/2/121.abstract |x Verlag |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 935 | |a mteo | ||
| 936 | u | w | |d 26 |j 2000 |e 2 |h 121-125 |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| ITA | |a 1 |t 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 4185571615 | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 1816119725 | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20220908053309 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 220908||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 035 |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-08-02#F09F63DF5D280537470B71DBCCAF30C97CC1B4C5 | ||
| LOK | |0 040 |a DE-Tue135 |c DE-627 |d DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
| LOK | |0 852 |a DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
| LOK | |0 866 |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/27718467 | ||
| LOK | |0 935 |a ixzs |a ixrk |a zota | ||
| OAS | |a 1 | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw | ||