Authors
Thomas Cavanaugh
University of San Francisco
Abstract
Proponents commonly justify the legalization of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) in terms of a patient's wanting to die (autonomy) and the patient's having a medically established good reason for suicide. These are the common elements of the standard justification offered for the legalization of PAS. In what follows, I argue that these two conditions exist in significant tension with one another, operating according to distinct dynamics that render the justification for PAS an unstable basis for public policy. Moreover, no natural connection keeps these two criteria united. Indeedthe two elements of the justification oppose and threaten to exclude one another. Thus, the PAS justification is too labile a basis for sound public policy
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s0963180101001141
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: 56,913
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Does Physician Assisted Suicide Violate the Integrity of Medicine?Richard Momeyer - 1995 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1):13-24.
Conscience, Referral, and Physician Assisted Suicide.Kevin WM Wildes - 1993 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 18 (3):323-328.
Ending Life, Morality, and Meaning.Jukka Varelius - 2013 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (3):559-574.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-08-24

Total views
62 ( #160,582 of 2,409,637 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #189,364 of 2,409,637 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes