Year:

  1.  65
    Catholic Treatment Ethics and Secular Law: How Can They Cohere?J. Balch Thomas - 2016 - Solidarity: The Journal of Catholic Social Thought and Secular Ethics 6 (1):Article 4.
    Central elements of Roman Catholic treatment ethics include: 1) that rejection of treatment with the intent of hastening death (even for a good end) is ethically equivalent to active euthanasia with the same intent; 2) a distinction between morally obligatory “ordinary” treatment and morally optional “extraordinary treatment”; 3) that the quality of the patient’s life is not be a legitimate basis for rejecting treatment; and 4) that extraordinary treatment is not forbidden, but optional, and that it is the patient or (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. Double Effect and Ethical End-of-Life Care: Assessing the Benefits and Burdens of Lethal Treatment (or Lack Thereof).Giebel Heidi - 2016 - Solidarity: The Journal of Catholic Social Thought and Secular Ethics 6 (1).
    Given the wide the range of legally available options for end-of-life care in recent decades: from aggressive, even experimental, treatment to active euthanasia, our ethical analysis struggles to keep pace with technology and law. In this essay I show that the principle of double effect (PDE) remains, and will continue to be, a useful tool for ethical analysis of end-of-life care. According to PDE, an agent may ethically perform an act that s/he foresees will have a significant bad effect (e.g., (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. “Such is Life”: Euthanasia and Capital Punishment in Australia: Consistency or Contradiction?Quinlan Michael - 2016 - Solidarity: The Journal of Catholic Social Thought and Secular Ethics 6 (1):Article 6.
    Lawful euthanasia involves State endorsed termination of human life. Apart from a period of less than 9 months, in the Northern Territory, euthanasia has been illegal in Australia. Many of Australia’s parliaments have regularly considered introducing the practice and they continue to do so. In this context, this paper considers another type of State endorsed termination of human life: capital punishment. These took place in Australia from 1788 to 1967. The practice was abolished nationwide by 1985 and the Commonwealth passed (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. The Dialectic of Autonomy and Beneficence in the Standard Argument for ‘Death with Dignity'.Bell Jeremy Raymond - 2016 - Solidarity: The Journal of Catholic Social Thought and Secular Ethics 6 (1):Article 3.
    Philosophers who defend a person’s right, under certain circumstances, to end his own life or to have a physician end it for him typically appeal both to respect for patient autonomy and to considerations of beneficence. Neither autonomy alone nor beneficence alone can ground a persuasive case for euthanasia. I argue, however, that the standard argument for euthanasia is unsound. It is not possible to combine the principles of autonomy and beneficence in such a way as to justify euthanasia for (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5. The Future in Our Hands? - A Dialectical Argument Against Legalising Euthanasia.Angier Tom - 2016 - Solidarity: The Journal of Catholic Social Thought and Secular Ethics 6 (1):Article 2.
    In this paper I argue that no state should legalise euthanasia, either voluntary or non-voluntary. I begin by outlining three political arguments against such legalisation, by Russell Hittinger, Elizabeth Anscombe and David Novak. Each concludes, on different grounds, that legalised euthanasia fatally erodes the role and authority of the state. Although correct in their conclusion, the arguments they provide are deficient. To fill this gap, I elaborate what I call a ‘fourfold dialectic’ between autonomy and compassion, the two central motivations (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. Suffering, Euthanasia and Professional Expertise.Symons Xavier - 2016 - Solidarity: The Journal of Catholic Social Thought and Secular Ethics 6 (1):Article 5.
    In most jurisdictions where euthanasia is legal, patients seeking euthanasia need to seek out the approval of their request from two clinicians (one of who is a psychiatrist). These doctors are required to assess whether euthanasia is ‘appropriate’ for the patient in question. In this paper I claim that doctors qua doctors are not qualified (or, at least, not typically) to evaluate suffering of an existential kind, and consequently they are not qualified to 'evaluate' the requests of patients seeking euthanasia. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
 Previous issues
  
Next issues