Euthanasia and the Defence of Necessity: advocating a more appropriate legal response

S. Ost
{"title":"Euthanasia and the Defence of Necessity: advocating a more appropriate legal response","authors":"S. Ost","doi":"10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780199228294.003.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article addresses the question of whether the defence of necessity could be utilised in cases of euthanasia in the medical context. It challenges the application of the doctrine of double effect as a means of ascertaining the physician's primary intent and argues instead that the law should recognise that the physician faces a situation of necessity. It asserts that given the potential availability of the defence of diminished responsibility to a relative or spouse who carries out a mercy killing, not allowing the physician to utilise the defence of necessity may place him at greater risk of conviction for murder than the layperson.","PeriodicalId":81026,"journal":{"name":"Criminal law review (London, England)","volume":"1 1","pages":"355-370"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminal law review (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780199228294.003.0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

This article addresses the question of whether the defence of necessity could be utilised in cases of euthanasia in the medical context. It challenges the application of the doctrine of double effect as a means of ascertaining the physician's primary intent and argues instead that the law should recognise that the physician faces a situation of necessity. It asserts that given the potential availability of the defence of diminished responsibility to a relative or spouse who carries out a mercy killing, not allowing the physician to utilise the defence of necessity may place him at greater risk of conviction for murder than the layperson.
安乐死与必要性辩护:倡导更适当的法律回应
这篇文章讨论了在医学背景下安乐死的情况下是否可以利用必要性辩护的问题。它挑战了双重效果原则作为确定医生的主要意图的一种手段的应用,并认为法律应该承认医生面临着一种必要的情况。它声称,鉴于实施安乐死的亲属或配偶可能有责任减轻的辩护,不允许医生利用必要性辩护可能使他比非专业人员面临更大的谋杀定罪风险。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书