Eligibility for assisted dying: not protection for vulnerable people, but protection for people when they are vulnerable

Downie and Schuklenk1 provide a clear narrative of the development of Canadian policy on medically assisted dying. This is very helpful for considering specific aspects of the continuing deliberations in Canada. This commentary presents an alternative perspective on the authors’ argument that narrow...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Winters, Janine Penfield (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: BMJ Publ. 2021
In: Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2021, Volume: 47, Issue: 10, Pages: 672-673
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 1816165875
003 DE-627
005 20230428063600.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 220908s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1136/medethics-2021-107794  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1816165875 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1816165875 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Winters, Janine Penfield  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Eligibility for assisted dying: not protection for vulnerable people, but protection for people when they are vulnerable 
264 1 |c 2021 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Downie and Schuklenk1 provide a clear narrative of the development of Canadian policy on medically assisted dying. This is very helpful for considering specific aspects of the continuing deliberations in Canada. This commentary presents an alternative perspective on the authors’ argument that narrow eligibility criteria for medical assistance in dying (MAiD) are discriminatory and unjustified. I argue that disability or mental illness as sole reason for accessing MAiD removes protections for all people who have times in their life when they have mental illness or disability combined with intolerable suffering. I claim that individuals do not make their best, self-actualising decisions at those times and the supposed protections of vague terms such as incurable, advanced and decline are not clinically useful for evaluating eligibility for individuals with chronic health conditions.Within discussion of the impact of social determinants of health on access to MAiD, the authors present the argument that decisionally capable people with mental illness or disabilities as their sole underlying condition should be allowed to access MAiD. The authors state that opposing this access sacrifices patient rights and strips people of their agency. To support their argument, they embrace the idea that people with mental illness or disabilities belong to an identifiable cohort. They claim that … 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal of medical ethics  |d London : BMJ Publ., 1975  |g 47(2021), 10, Seite 672-673  |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:47  |g year:2021  |g number:10  |g pages:672-673 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107794  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u http://jme.bmj.com/content/47/10/672.abstract  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |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 4185619820 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1816165875 
LOK |0 005 20220908053807 
LOK |0 008 220908||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-08-03#EEFFC43302E7FD5F4D786826CE37906227F5F0AD 
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 |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
OAS |a 1  |b inherited from superior work 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw