"A perfection of means, and confusion of aims": finding the essence of autonomy in assisted death laws.

Mary J. Shariff
{"title":"\"A perfection of means, and confusion of aims\": finding the essence of autonomy in assisted death laws.","authors":"Mary J. Shariff","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1873532","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores whether the principles of autonomy and self-determination are indeed at the root of the assisted death laws currently in place in a number of jurisdictions. It is written to appeal to a very broad audience and to those who wish to become better informed about the legal aspects of the assisted death debate.The article first provides a comprehensive and comparative examination of the assisted death laws in the jurisdictions that have promulgated express legislation to regulate assisted death - The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Oregon and Washington and also includes an examination of Switzerland, which does not currently have express legislation but does have a long legal history concerning the practice of assisted death. This approach has been taken in order to provide the reader with information cogent to the evolution of the assisted death laws that can enable the reader throughout the discussion, to formulate his or her own opinions with respect to the essence of these laws and the different principles and policies at play in their development and legal manifestation.The concept of autonomy is explored throughout and offers the author’s reflection on the extent to which this principle has been applied or incorporated into the respective laws and explores how each jurisdiction has framed the assisted death conflict and the limits to autonomy that arise from each unique construction. Of particular interest here is the varying treatment and relevance of the “suffering” requirement and the interplay between medicine, suffering and autonomy.The article next summarizes the specific role that autonomy plays, relative to other competing principles in the respective assisted death laws in order to test the durability of the autonomy principle in advancing the assisted death movement.The article concludes by drawing attention to the apparent inverse relationship between the expression of autonomy and the scope of the assisted death remedies available to the individual wishing to die. The article ultimately describes the expression of autonomy as a function of the negotiation between physician and patient and calls for a deeper discussion as to what is or should be the appropriate role of physicians in the art of dying.The paper also cautions against the direct importation of assisted death regulatory frameworks from other jurisdictions given their respective heterogeneous foundations.","PeriodicalId":79609,"journal":{"name":"Health law in Canada","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health law in Canada","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1873532","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This article explores whether the principles of autonomy and self-determination are indeed at the root of the assisted death laws currently in place in a number of jurisdictions. It is written to appeal to a very broad audience and to those who wish to become better informed about the legal aspects of the assisted death debate.The article first provides a comprehensive and comparative examination of the assisted death laws in the jurisdictions that have promulgated express legislation to regulate assisted death - The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Oregon and Washington and also includes an examination of Switzerland, which does not currently have express legislation but does have a long legal history concerning the practice of assisted death. This approach has been taken in order to provide the reader with information cogent to the evolution of the assisted death laws that can enable the reader throughout the discussion, to formulate his or her own opinions with respect to the essence of these laws and the different principles and policies at play in their development and legal manifestation.The concept of autonomy is explored throughout and offers the author’s reflection on the extent to which this principle has been applied or incorporated into the respective laws and explores how each jurisdiction has framed the assisted death conflict and the limits to autonomy that arise from each unique construction. Of particular interest here is the varying treatment and relevance of the “suffering” requirement and the interplay between medicine, suffering and autonomy.The article next summarizes the specific role that autonomy plays, relative to other competing principles in the respective assisted death laws in order to test the durability of the autonomy principle in advancing the assisted death movement.The article concludes by drawing attention to the apparent inverse relationship between the expression of autonomy and the scope of the assisted death remedies available to the individual wishing to die. The article ultimately describes the expression of autonomy as a function of the negotiation between physician and patient and calls for a deeper discussion as to what is or should be the appropriate role of physicians in the art of dying.The paper also cautions against the direct importation of assisted death regulatory frameworks from other jurisdictions given their respective heterogeneous foundations.
“手段的完善,目的的混乱”:寻找辅助死亡法律的自治本质。
本文探讨自治和自决原则是否确实是目前在一些司法管辖区实施的协助死亡法的根源。它的写作是为了吸引非常广泛的受众和那些希望更好地了解协助死亡辩论的法律方面的人。本文首先对已颁布明确立法规范协助死亡的司法管辖区(荷兰、比利时、卢森堡、俄勒冈州和华盛顿州)的协助死亡法律进行了全面和比较审查,还包括对瑞士的审查,瑞士目前没有明确立法,但在协助死亡实践方面有很长的法律历史。采取这种做法是为了向读者提供有关协助死亡法律演变的有说服力的信息,使读者能够在整个讨论过程中就这些法律的本质以及在这些法律的发展和法律表现中起作用的不同原则和政策形成自己的意见。自治的概念贯穿始终,并提供了作者对这一原则在多大程度上被应用或纳入各自法律的思考,并探讨了每个司法管辖区如何构建协助死亡冲突以及每个独特结构产生的自治限制。这里特别令人感兴趣的是不同的治疗方法和“痛苦”要求的相关性以及医学、痛苦和自主之间的相互作用。接下来,文章总结了自主原则相对于其他竞争原则在各自的协助死亡法律中所起的具体作用,以检验自主原则在推进协助死亡运动中的持久性。文章的结论是提请注意自主表达与希望死亡的个人可获得的协助死亡补救办法的范围之间明显的反比关系。这篇文章最终将自主权的表达描述为医生和病人之间协商的一种功能,并呼吁对医生在死亡艺术中应该扮演什么角色进行更深入的讨论。鉴于其各自的异质基础,本文还警告不要直接从其他司法管辖区进口协助死亡监管框架。
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