In the debate surrounding the morality and legality of the practices of physician-assisted death and euthanasia, a common logical argument regularly employed against these practices is the “slippery slope argument.” One formulation of this argument claims that acceptance of physician-assisted death will eventually lead down a “slippery slope” into acceptance of active euthanasia, including its voluntary, non-voluntary, and/or involuntary forms, through psychological and social processes that warp a society’s values and moral perspective of a practice over an extended period of (...) time. This formulation is known as the psychological slippery slope argument. This paper analyzes the psychological slippery slope argument as it is applied to the practice of physician-assisted death, and utilizing recent empirical evidence from various nations around the world that practice physician-assisted death and/or euthanasia, the paper argues that employing the psychological slippery slope argument against physician-assisted death is logically fallacious, this kind of slippery slope is unfounded in practice, and thus the psychological slippery slope argument is insufficient on its own to justify continued legal prohibition of physician-assisted death. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 6, June 2020, Page 28-30.

In the United States, the field of bioethics has expanded over the last two decades. Several institutions offer graduate-level training at both the masters and doctoral level. However, a lack of published literature on the outcomes of doctoral training in bioethics from the perspective of graduates exists. Researchers conducted an online survey of doctoral students who had finished all doctoral requirements but their dissertation, as well as doctoral graduates, of four US-based institutions to ascertain their perspectives on a number of (...) items regarding their doctoral training and their perception of how that training prepared them for their current role in the workforce. Responses from 34 participants were assessed. Respondents had positive overall views on the utility of a bioethics doctorate and the educational training they received in their respective programs. A number of areas for improvement were identified, including better structured clinical ethics training, greater opportunities for research and publishing, and having the ability to teach during their doctoral program, as well as formal pedagogy training. Greater exposure to clinical ethics consultation during the doctoral program was associated with feeling fully prepared as a clinical ethics consultant. This is the first study to assess the perspectives of bioethics doctoral graduates and ABD students regarding the utility of a bioethics doctorate. Per the perspectives of graduates and ABD students, bioethics doctorates are important and effective to train professional bioethicists. We recommend that a few key changes to these programs’ curricula can further bolster their effectiveness. (shrink)

In Catholic moral theology, the principle of double effect has been an effective normative tool for centuries, and it can be used to determine the ethicality of actions that contain both good and evil consequences. The principle of double effect is especially useful in end-of-life care, because many end-of-life treatment options inherently have both good and evil conse­quences. The principle of double effect can be used to make both practical and moral distinctions between the acts of euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, palliative (...) sedation, and the withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, which can be classified as either unjustified acts of killing or jus­tifiable acts of allowing to die. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 193-195.

Each year, many young professionals forego advanced education in the traditional doctoral programs of medicine, law, and philosophy in favor of pursuing a PhD or professional doctorate in bioethics or healthcare ethics that is offered by several major institutes of higher education across the United States. These graduates often leverage their degrees into careers within the broader field of bioethics. As such, they represent a growing percentage of professional bioethicists in both academia and healthcare nationwide. Given the significant role that (...) doctoral bioethics programs play in the training of future professional bioethicists, it is imperative that programs conferring bioethics degrees are attuned to the knowledge and skills students will need as they transition to professional positions, especially where this training substantially differs from more traditional doctoral degree tracks. Yet, even given this need, there is nothing in the professional literature regarding doctoral bioethics graduates’ perspectives or the overall efficacy of a bioethics doctorate as compared to more traditional doctoral degree tracks for future professional bioethicists. This paper then gives the perspective of five recent doctoral bioethics graduates on the utility of a bioethics doctorate and areas where the doctorate prepared or underprepared them in their roles as early-career professional bioethicists. (shrink)

While the practice of organ donation after cardiac death has long been trending upwards in acceptance and use, it is still a highly controversial and practically inefficient method of organ procurement. One policy that has recently been proposed to try and alleviate some of the ethical and practical concerns with organ donation after cardiac death is the practice of imminent death organ donation. This type of live organ donation comes in patients at the end of their life who have decided (...) to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, but still want to ensure that their organs are donated and not wasted, which isn't always the case with organ donation after cardiac death. This paper then gives some ethical and practical reflections and recommendations regarding the potential implementation of this controversial practice into regular transplant practice and policy. (shrink)

This paper is a clinical ethics case study which sheds light on several important dilemmas which arise in providing care to patients from cultures with non-individualistic conceptions of autonomy. Medical professionals face a difficult challenge in determining how to respond when families of patients ask that patients not be informed of bad medical news. These requests are often made for cultural reasons, by families seeking to protect patients. In these cases, the right that patients have to their own medical information (...) in order to make autonomous decisions is in tension with the possibility that patients could hold values that require limiting their autonomy with regard to medical information disclosure, often based on the idea that family should take on difficult decision-making as an act of care. We describe one such case, of an 83-year old Russian woman whose husband requested she not be informed of a new cancer diagnosis. The appropriate response to this request was to ask the patient about her values separately, without disclosing any medical information until her values were clear. This patient indicated she wanted the care team to uphold her husband’s request. This response makes the importance of determining a patient’s values before moving forward with disclosure clear: she would not have wanted to be informed of her cancer. We describe our conversation strategy, which allowed value exploration without disclosure and highlighted that the obligation to respect a patient’s autonomy sometimes includes an obligation to allow a patient to choose to limit their own autonomy. This case also highlights that this kind of conversation prioritizes the patient’s values rather than the family’s or care team’s, centering patients in the way that is ethically appropriate. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 2, February 2020, Page 62-64.