The limitations of the Dutch concept of euthanasia.

Margaret Sleeboom
{"title":"The limitations of the Dutch concept of euthanasia.","authors":"Margaret Sleeboom","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Why has the law on euthanasia in the Netherlands caused such an upheaval both at home and abroad? In this paper I explore some bioethical issues in the decriminalisation of euthanasia in the Netherlands. The regulatory role of legal and state institutions in the process of decision-making by patients, physicians and other people concerned plays a central role in these discussions. I argue, first, that the limited scope of the Dutch legislation on euthanasia cannot be a solution to end-of-life issues in general, and, second, that it is inadequate as a model for dealing with problems related to 'death-on-request' abroad. Moreover, the confusion around the meaning of the term euthanasia would make its adaptation in other institutional environments capricious. Legal changes in the Netherlands was accompanied by cultural changes, expressed in the use of terms such as individual autonomy and personal choice. In the last section of this article I argue that the social and political environment may be crucial in defining the meaning of free choice. The contending views on the decriminalisation of euthanasia seem to develop as a reaction to change in medical technology in a particular socio-political environment rather than from a unique cultural ethic.</p>","PeriodicalId":87251,"journal":{"name":"Eubios journal of Asian and international bioethics : EJAIB","volume":"13 1","pages":"20-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eubios journal of Asian and international bioethics : EJAIB","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Why has the law on euthanasia in the Netherlands caused such an upheaval both at home and abroad? In this paper I explore some bioethical issues in the decriminalisation of euthanasia in the Netherlands. The regulatory role of legal and state institutions in the process of decision-making by patients, physicians and other people concerned plays a central role in these discussions. I argue, first, that the limited scope of the Dutch legislation on euthanasia cannot be a solution to end-of-life issues in general, and, second, that it is inadequate as a model for dealing with problems related to 'death-on-request' abroad. Moreover, the confusion around the meaning of the term euthanasia would make its adaptation in other institutional environments capricious. Legal changes in the Netherlands was accompanied by cultural changes, expressed in the use of terms such as individual autonomy and personal choice. In the last section of this article I argue that the social and political environment may be crucial in defining the meaning of free choice. The contending views on the decriminalisation of euthanasia seem to develop as a reaction to change in medical technology in a particular socio-political environment rather than from a unique cultural ethic.

荷兰安乐死概念的局限性。
为什么荷兰关于安乐死的法律在国内外引起了如此大的动荡?在本文中,我探讨了荷兰安乐死合法化中的一些生物伦理问题。法律和国家机构在患者、医生和其他有关人员的决策过程中的调节作用在这些讨论中起着核心作用。我认为,第一,荷兰关于安乐死的立法范围有限,不能解决一般的生命终结问题,而且,第二,它不足以作为处理国外“要求死亡”相关问题的模式。此外,围绕“安乐死”一词含义的混淆将使其在其他制度环境中的适应变得反复无常。荷兰的法律变化伴随着文化变化,这表现在使用诸如个人自主和个人选择等术语。在本文的最后一部分,我认为社会和政治环境在定义自由选择的意义方面可能是至关重要的。关于安乐死合法化的争论观点似乎是在特定的社会政治环境中对医疗技术变化的反应,而不是来自独特的文化伦理。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信