David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28 (5):453-463 (2007)
The growing support for voluntary active euthanasia (VAE) is evident in the recently approved Dutch Law on Termination of Life on Request. Indeed, the debate over legalized VAE has increased in European countries, the United States, and many other nations over the last several years. The proponents of VAE argue that when a patient judges that the burdens of living outweigh the benefits, euthanasia can be justified. If some adults suffer to such an extent that VAE is justified, then one may conclude that some children suffer to this extent as well. In an attempt to alleviate the suffering of extremely ill neonates, the University Medical Center Groningen developed a protocol for neonatal euthanasia. In this article, I first present the ethical justifications for VAE and discuss how these arguments relate to euthanizing ill neonates. I then argue that, even if one accepts the justification for VAE in adults, neonatal euthanasia cannot be supported, primarily because physicians and parents can never accurately assess the suffering of children. I argue that without the testament of the patient herself as to the nature and magnitude of her suffering, physicians can never accurately weigh the benefits and burdens of a child’s life, and therefore any such system would condemn to death some children whose suffering is not unbearable. I conclude that because the primary duty of physicians is to never harm their patients, neonatal euthanasia cannot be supported.
|Keywords||Neonatal euthanasia Groningen Protocol suffering quality of life|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Stephen Hanson (2009). Still on the Same Slope: Groningen Breaks No New Ethical Ground. American Journal of Bioethics 9 (4):67-68.
Similar books and articles
Shi Pdau (1991). Euthanasia in China: A Report. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (2).
Jacob M. Appel (2009). Neonatal Euthanasia: Why Require Parental Consent? [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (4):477-482.
Martin Klein (2004). Voluntary Active Euthanasia and the Doctrine of Double Effect: A View From Germany. Health Care Analysis 12 (3):225-240.
Leslie Pickering Francis (1993). Advance Directives for Voluntary Euthanasia: A Volatile Combination? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 18 (3):297-322.
G. Seay (2011). Euthanasia and Common Sense: A Reply to Garcia. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36 (3):321-327.
Martin Van Hees (2003). Voluntariness, Suffering and Euthanasia. Philosophical Explorations 6 (1):50 – 64.
Jos V. M. Welie (1992). The Medical Exception: Physicians, Euthanasia and the Dutch Criminal Law. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (4):419-437.
Margaret Otlowski (1997). Voluntary Euthanasia and the Common Law. Clarendon Press.
B. A. Manninen (2006). A Case for Justified Non-Voluntary Active Euthanasia: Exploring the Ethics of the Groningen Protocol. Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (11):643-651.
Alan Jotkowitz, S. Glick & B. Gesundheit (2008). A Case Against Justified Non-Voluntary Active Euthanasia (the Groningen Protocol). American Journal of Bioethics 8 (11):23 – 26.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads43 ( #45,057 of 1,413,232 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #94,196 of 1,413,232 )
How can I increase my downloads?