Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (5):517 – 533 (2005)

Abstract
Opponents of euthanasia sometimes argue that it is incompatible with the purpose of medicine, since physicians have an unconditional duty never to intentionally cause death. But it is not clear how such a duty could ever actually be unconditional, if due consideration is given to the moral weight of countervailing duties equally fundamental to medicine. Whether physicians' moral duties are understood as correlative with patients' moral rights or construed noncorrelatively, a doctor's obligation to abstain from intentional killing cannot be more than a defeasible duty.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/03605310500253071
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 62,343
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Principles of Biomedical Ethics.Tom L. Beauchamp - 1979 - Oxford University Press.
Natural Law and Natural Rights.John Finnis - 1979 - Oxford University Press.
Are There Any Natural Rights?H. L. A. Hart - 1955 - Philosophical Review 64 (2):175-191.
Practical Ethics.John Martin Fischer - 1983 - Philosophical Review 92 (2):264.

View all 19 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Euthanasia and Common Sense: A Reply to Garcia.G. Seay - 2011 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36 (3):321-327.
Introduction.Benjamin E. Hippen - 2005 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (5):443 – 447.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
118 ( #89,622 of 2,445,358 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #149,145 of 2,445,358 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes