The Experts below are selected from a list of 1098 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Ezekiel J. Emanuel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Distinction Between Active and Passive Euthanasia-Reply
    Archives of Internal Medicine, 1995
    Co-Authors: Ezekiel J. Emanuel
    Abstract:

    In reply Gert is correct that there is a distinction between refusals and requests that is relevant to the ethical debate about Euthanasia. I may correctly be criticized for not having highlighted it in my discussion of definitions and for having overly stressed the importance of the physician's intention. 1 However, my point in stating the definitions was not to settle ethical arguments by clever definitions but to make sure we all use these terms in the same manner. In considering the ethical arguments against Euthanasia, I clearly acknowledge the ethical importance of the refusal-request distinction. In my article, 1 I state: Prohibiting Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide does not prevent individuals... from committing suicide by any number of other mechanisms.... In this sense, the autonomy to kill oneself does not extend "to have someone else's assistance."... The philosopher Francis Kamm put it this way: "[T]he person who requests it does

Jung Hun Kang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Comparison of attitudes towards five end-of-life care interventions (active pain control, withdrawal of futile life-sustaining treatment, Passive Euthanasia, active Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide): a multicentred cross-sectional survey of
    BMJ open, 2018
    Co-Authors: Young Ho Yun, Kyoung Nam Kim, Jin Ah Sim, Shin Hye Yoo, Miso Kim, Young A Kim, Beodeul Kang, Hyun Jeong Shim, Eun Kee Song, Jung Hun Kang
    Abstract:

    Objectives This study determined attitudes of four groups—Korean patients with cancer, their family caregivers, physicians and the general Korean population—towards five critical end-of-life (EOL) interventions—active pain control, withdrawal of futile life-sustaining treatment (LST), Passive Euthanasia, active Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Design and setting We enrolled 1001 patients with cancer and 1006 caregivers from 12 large hospitals in Korea, 1241 members of the general population and 928 physicians from each of the 12 hospitals and the Korean Medical Association. We analysed the associations of demographic factors, attitudes towards death and the important components of a ‘good death’ with critical interventions at EoL care. Results All participant groups strongly favoured active pain control and withdrawal of futile LST but differed in attitudes towards the other four EoL interventions. Physicians (98.9%) favoured Passive Euthanasia more than the other three groups. Lower proportions of the four groups favoured active Euthanasia or PAS. Multiple logistic regression showed that education (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.77, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.36), caregiver role (aOR 1.67, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.08) and considering death as the ending of life (aOR 1.66, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.61) were associated with preference for active pain control. Attitudes towards death, including belief in being remembered (aOR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.79) and feeling ‘life was meaningful’ (aOR 2.56, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.15) were both strong correlates of withdrawal of LST with the level of monthly income (aOR 2.56, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.15). Believing ‘freedom from pain’ negatively predicted preference for Passive Euthanasia (aOR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.85). In addition, ‘not being a burden to the family’ was positively related to preferences for active Euthanasia (aOR 1.62, 95% CI 1.39 to 1.90) and PAS (aOR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.89). Conclusion Groups differed in their attitudes towards the five EoL interventions, and those attitudes were significantly associated with various attitudes towards death.

R. Peter Mogielnicki - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The distinction between active and Passive Euthanasia.
    Archives of internal medicine, 1995
    Co-Authors: Bernard Gert, James L. Bernat, R. Peter Mogielnicki
    Abstract:

    In his review article, "Euthanasia: Historical, Ethical, and Empiric Perspectives," Emanuel 1 ignores the crucial distinction between request and refusal that gives moral significance to the distinction between active and Passive Euthanasia. In discussing his table of definitions, Emanuel says: ... what distinguishes voluntary active Euthanasia from either Passive or indirect Euthanasia is the intention of the physician. In the former case, the physician intends to end the life of the patient, while in the latter two cases the physician intends something else, such as relieving pain or withdrawing intrusive medical interventions. We believe that this is mistaken. The intention of the physician is not what distinguishes voluntary active Euthanasia from voluntary Passive Euthanasia (terminating life-sustaining medical treatments). The crucial moral distinction is that between a patient refusal and a patient request. When a competent patient rationally refuses a medical treatment, a physician is both morally and legally required to abide

Lea N. Lupkin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • First-Year College Students' Attitudes about End-of-Life Decision-Making
    Omega, 2010
    Co-Authors: Gregory L. Weiss, Lea N. Lupkin
    Abstract:

    This study analyzes attitudes about treatment of the terminally ill among a group of first-year undergraduate students—a cohort that was in high school when intense publicity and extensive political and judicial involvement in the Terri Schiavo case occurred. Data for the study were collected by structured personal interviews with 201 randomly selected, first-year students in the first half of fall semester, 2005. Students clearly make distinctions in the propriety of active Euthanasia, Passive Euthanasia, and physician-assisted death. Presented with a situation of a terminally ill patient in considerable pain, 65.1% of the students supported or strongly supported withdrawal of life-sustaining technology (Passive Euthanasia), 34.3% supported the physician providing the means of death to the patient (physician-assisted death), and 28.3% supported the physician actually administering a lethal injection (active Euthanasia). A review of the literature of correlates of Euthanasia attitudes in a variety of samp...

Leslie Burkholder - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Nancy B and Nancy F
    Journal of applied philosophy, 2001
    Co-Authors: Leslie Burkholder
    Abstract:

    In this article I provide a virtuous slippery slope argument which shows that there is no morally significant difference between Passive and active Euthanasia. At the top of the slope is an example of Passive Euthanasia; at the bottom, an example of active Euthanasia. For each pair of cases down the slope there is nothing that sensibly makes a morally significant difference between the pair of cases. Thus, there is no morally significant difference between Passive Euthanasia and active Euthanasia.