Euthanasia, Anti-Egalitarian Bias, and Breach of the Duty of Medical Care: A Reply to Rivera López.

IF 1.7 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Bioethics Pub Date : 2025-06-11 DOI:10.1111/bioe.13439
Federico Germán Abal
{"title":"Euthanasia, Anti-Egalitarian Bias, and Breach of the Duty of Medical Care: A Reply to Rivera López.","authors":"Federico Germán Abal","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13439","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Rivera López offers a coherent defense of three norms: the right to active euthanasia, the right to refuse or withdraw medical treatments, and the prohibition of consensual homicide. These norms appear to come to tension if an autonomy-based justification for euthanasia is adopted. To resolve this tension, Rivera López appeals to a paternalistic argument and to the distinction between the right to autonomy and the right to bodily integrity. In this paper, I argue that the paternalistic argument implies an anti-egalitarian bias about the value of certain lives and that the distinction between the right to autonomy and the right to bodily integrity leads to consequences that are incompatible with the special duty of medical care.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13439","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rivera López offers a coherent defense of three norms: the right to active euthanasia, the right to refuse or withdraw medical treatments, and the prohibition of consensual homicide. These norms appear to come to tension if an autonomy-based justification for euthanasia is adopted. To resolve this tension, Rivera López appeals to a paternalistic argument and to the distinction between the right to autonomy and the right to bodily integrity. In this paper, I argue that the paternalistic argument implies an anti-egalitarian bias about the value of certain lives and that the distinction between the right to autonomy and the right to bodily integrity leads to consequences that are incompatible with the special duty of medical care.

安乐死,反平等主义偏见,违反医疗义务:对里维拉的回复López。
里维拉López为三个规范提供了连贯的辩护:主动安乐死的权利,拒绝或撤回治疗的权利,以及禁止双方同意的杀人。如果采用基于自治的安乐死理由,这些规范似乎会变得紧张。为了解决这种紧张关系,里维拉López诉诸于家长式的论点,以及自主权利和身体完整权利之间的区别。在本文中,我认为,家长式的论点暗示了对某些生命价值的反平等主义偏见,以及自主权和身体完整权之间的区别导致了与医疗照顾的特殊义务不相容的后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Bioethics
Bioethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
9.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: As medical technology continues to develop, the subject of bioethics has an ever increasing practical relevance for all those working in philosophy, medicine, law, sociology, public policy, education and related fields. Bioethics provides a forum for well-argued articles on the ethical questions raised by current issues such as: international collaborative clinical research in developing countries; public health; infectious disease; AIDS; managed care; genomics and stem cell research. These questions are considered in relation to concrete ethical, legal and policy problems, or in terms of the fundamental concepts, principles and theories used in discussions of such problems. Bioethics also features regular Background Briefings on important current debates in the field. These feature articles provide excellent material for bioethics scholars, teachers and students alike.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信