Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Philosophy and religion

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Philosophy and religion

What can medical ethics learn from history?

Article Abstract:

Arguments and attitudes that led to the Nazi practice of euthanasia have some disturbing resonances with ideas heard today. The danger in many well-off societies today is not euthanasia as such, but an unfair distribution of health care resources that may cause some elderly people to be regarded as a burden, by themselves as well as by others. The moral boundary that should not be crossed is not one between killing and letting die, but rather one between making decisions with the person concerned (first-person judgments) versus making decisions about the person (third-person judgments).

Author: Boyd, Kenneth
Publisher: British Medical Association
Publication Name: Journal of Medical Ethics
Subject: Philosophy and religion
ISSN: 0306-6800
Year: 1995
Editorial, History, Science, National socialism, Health care rationing, National socialism and science

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Commentary 2: thesis correct: argument unconvincing

Article Abstract:

Susan Lowe's arguments supporting her thesis that the right to refuse treatment is not the right to be killed is not convincing although the proposition given is acceptable. Legal presumptions depend on respect caused by the integrity of a human person. Furthermore, Lowe's argument on programming a respirator to enable a clinician to avoid the dilemma of obeying a patient's wish or not was not fully reflected upon. This is because the use of mechanical devices in place of a real doctor's moral judgment is not ethical.

Author: Dunstan, G.R.
Publisher: British Medical Association
Publication Name: Journal of Medical Ethics
Subject: Philosophy and religion
ISSN: 0306-6800
Year: 1997
Physicians, Medical professions

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Commentary 1: the right to refuse treatment

Article Abstract:

Doctors can be spared of the trouble of having to decide on a patient's request to withdraw his life support system. This can be done by providing medical equipments with automatic switch-off mechanisms which would allow patients to die without human intervention. However, clinician's actions are expected to be determined by their ethics and medical legality. Although these cases seldom occur, these give the patients a chance to voice out their wishes.

Author: Tripp, John H.
Publisher: British Medical Association
Publication Name: Journal of Medical Ethics
Subject: Philosophy and religion
ISSN: 0306-6800
Year: 1997
Analysis, Medicine, Practice, Medical practice

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Ethical aspects, Euthanasia, Medical ethics, Care and treatment, Usage, Patients, Refusal to treat (Medicine), Patient care, Life support systems (Critical care), Life support care
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Ethics in advertising: the players, the rules and the scorecard. Ethical distancing: rationalizing violations of organizational norms
  • Abstracts: Teaching medical ethics and law within medical education: a model for the UK core curriculum. Teaching ethics to medical students
  • Abstracts: Environmental risk problems and the language of ethics. Ethical behavior as a strategic choice by large corporations: the interactive effect of marketplace competition, industry structure and firm resources
  • Abstracts: Toward a theory of the ethics of bureaucratic organizations. A theoretical ground for the practice of business ethics: a commentary
  • Abstracts: The maturing of the Japanese economy: corporate social responsibility implications. The ontological and moral status of organizations
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.