Commentary: Euthanasia in Europe: a critique of the Marty report

Keown’s critique of the Marty report is as flawed as the report it criticises In 2003, a report by the Council of Europe’s social, health and family affairs committee appeared, questioning the council’s opposition to the legislation of euthanasia. This report is known as the Marty report. The report...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Widdershoven, G. (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: BMJ Publ. 2006
In: Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2006, Volume: 32, Issue: 1, Pages: 34-35
Online Access: Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (kostenfrei)
Volltext (kostenfrei)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1816129917
003 DE-627
005 20220908053420.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 220908s2006 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1136/jme.2005.012146  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1816129917 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1816129917 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Widdershoven, G.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Commentary: Euthanasia in Europe: a critique of the Marty report 
264 1 |c 2006 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Keown’s critique of the Marty report is as flawed as the report it criticises In 2003, a report by the Council of Europe’s social, health and family affairs committee appeared, questioning the council’s opposition to the legislation of euthanasia. This report is known as the Marty report. The report contains several arguments in favour of legalisation of euthanasia. The first argument focuses on the gap between practice and law. Legalisation would bring existing practices of euthanasia out of the grey area, and make them more open to control. The second argument is that as long as euthanasia is legally forbidden, patients are forced to continue living in unbearable pain and suffering. In his critique of the Marty report, John Keown concludes that both arguments are invalid.1 He questions the presumed gap between practice and law, and criticises the conclusion that such a gap would imply that the law should be changed. He also argues that the notion of unbearable pain and suffering is highly problematic, and cannot serve as a justification for euthanasia. Although Keown’s discussion shows thorough knowledge of the issue at hand, his conclusions are one sided and his dismissal of the position taken in the Marty report is too easy. In order to substantiate this, I will go into Keown’s critique of the two arguments in the report. According to the Marty report, legalisation of euthanasia would bring existing practice into the open, and make decisions less arbitrary. Keown questions this argument in two ways. Firstly, he raises doubt as to whether the existing laws forbidding euthanasia are that often broken in practice. Several studies indicate that euthanasia is not very common in medical practice. If this is the case, the gap between law and practice is not as large as one might think. Keown rightly … 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal of medical ethics  |d London : BMJ Publ., 1975  |g 32(2006), 1, Seite 34-35  |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:32  |g year:2006  |g number:1  |g pages:34-35 
856 |3 Volltext  |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/27719554  |x JSTOR 
856 |u https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/32/1/34.full.pdf  |x unpaywall  |z Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang  |h publisher [open (via free pdf)] 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2005.012146  |x Resolving-System  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u http://jme.bmj.com/content/32/1/34.abstract  |x Verlag  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 418558377X 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1816129917 
LOK |0 005 20220908053420 
LOK |0 008 220908||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-08-02#2D8236F484E01588438CC8ACBA588CE7B32D27C9 
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/27719554 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw