Should Australia Adopt a Groningen Like Protocol?

IF 2.1 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pub Date : 2026-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-11-26 DOI:10.1007/s11673-025-10498-5
Kerstin Knight
{"title":"Should Australia Adopt a Groningen Like Protocol?","authors":"Kerstin Knight","doi":"10.1007/s11673-025-10498-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Based on an analysis of a case study from a Victorian case of neonatal hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE), I want to propose that in some circumstances it would be desirable to have well-regulated legal provisions, such as the Groningen Protocol (GP), to hasten the death of newborns with catastrophic health conditions in order to reduce suffering. My argument will take the following form: (1) Neonatal euthanasia in form of withholding all (including natural) nutrition and hydration is already practiced in Victoria and considered legal in circumstances of palliative care. (2) In cases where it is already legally practiced, there are better and worse ways to achieve a good death. Ways that result in less suffering, all else being equal, are morally superior and therefore preferable. (3) Lethal injections that result in a painless, controlled death are better than starvation, because it causes less suffering. Therefore, in cases where death as the palliative outcome is either aimed at or unavoidable, injection of a lethal medication is preferable to slow starvation. In well considered circumstances it should therefore be a legal treatment option and considered best practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":"525-536"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10498-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Based on an analysis of a case study from a Victorian case of neonatal hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE), I want to propose that in some circumstances it would be desirable to have well-regulated legal provisions, such as the Groningen Protocol (GP), to hasten the death of newborns with catastrophic health conditions in order to reduce suffering. My argument will take the following form: (1) Neonatal euthanasia in form of withholding all (including natural) nutrition and hydration is already practiced in Victoria and considered legal in circumstances of palliative care. (2) In cases where it is already legally practiced, there are better and worse ways to achieve a good death. Ways that result in less suffering, all else being equal, are morally superior and therefore preferable. (3) Lethal injections that result in a painless, controlled death are better than starvation, because it causes less suffering. Therefore, in cases where death as the palliative outcome is either aimed at or unavoidable, injection of a lethal medication is preferable to slow starvation. In well considered circumstances it should therefore be a legal treatment option and considered best practice.

澳大利亚应该采用格罗宁根式协议吗?
根据对维多利亚州新生儿缺氧缺血性脑病(HIE)案例研究的分析,我想提出,在某些情况下,最好有规范良好的法律规定,如《格罗宁根议定书》(GP),以加速患有灾难性健康状况的新生儿的死亡,以减少痛苦。我的论点将采取以下形式:(1)以停止所有(包括自然)营养和水合作用的形式进行的新生儿安乐死已经在维多利亚州实施,并且在姑息治疗的情况下被认为是合法的。(2)在法律上已经实行安乐死的情况下,有更好和更坏的方法来实现善终。在其他条件相同的情况下,减少痛苦的方式在道德上更优越,因此更可取。(3)注射致死药能使人无痛、可控地死亡,这比饥饿好,因为它造成的痛苦更少。因此,在以死亡作为缓和结果的情况下,注射致命药物比缓慢的饥饿更可取。因此,在经过深思熟虑的情况下,它应该是一种合法的治疗选择,并被认为是最佳做法。
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
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
67
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following: -philosophy- bioethics- economics- social theory- law- public health and epidemiology- anthropology- psychology- feminism- gay and lesbian studies- linguistics and discourse analysis- cultural studies- disability studies- history- literature and literary studies- environmental sciences- theology and religious studies
×
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
小红书