《协助死亡法案》立法分析[HL] [j]。

IF 1.4 Q2 ETHICS
Christopher M Wojtulewicz
{"title":"《协助死亡法案》立法分析[HL] [j]。","authors":"Christopher M Wojtulewicz","doi":"10.1080/20502877.2022.2090652","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper considers the number of speeches which treat central topics in the House of Lords second reading of the 'Assisted Dying Bill' (October 22, 2021). It summarizes some of the principal arguments for and against the Bill according to the main categories of discussion. These were compassion; palliative care; autonomy, choice and control; legal and social effects. In summarizing the arguments thematically, it is possible to see the current state of the debate and how concerns are shared on either side, even if approaches to and proposed solutions for those problems are different. The paper concludes that the essential source of disagreement lies outside of the arguments raised, and therefore that any change in the law is not likely to arise from political consensus.</p>","PeriodicalId":43760,"journal":{"name":"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body","volume":"28 4","pages":"350-367"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysing the Assisted Dying Bill [HL] debate 2021.\",\"authors\":\"Christopher M Wojtulewicz\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20502877.2022.2090652\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This paper considers the number of speeches which treat central topics in the House of Lords second reading of the 'Assisted Dying Bill' (October 22, 2021). It summarizes some of the principal arguments for and against the Bill according to the main categories of discussion. These were compassion; palliative care; autonomy, choice and control; legal and social effects. In summarizing the arguments thematically, it is possible to see the current state of the debate and how concerns are shared on either side, even if approaches to and proposed solutions for those problems are different. The paper concludes that the essential source of disagreement lies outside of the arguments raised, and therefore that any change in the law is not likely to arise from political consensus.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43760,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body\",\"volume\":\"28 4\",\"pages\":\"350-367\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2022.2090652\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2022.2090652","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文考虑了在上议院二读“协助死亡法案”(2021年10月22日)中处理中心话题的演讲数量。它根据讨论的主要类别总结了支持和反对该法案的一些主要论据。这就是怜悯;姑息治疗;自主、选择和控制;法律和社会效果。在对这些论点进行主题总结时,可以看到辩论的现状,以及双方的关切是如何共同的,即使对这些问题的处理方法和提出的解决办法不同。这篇论文的结论是,分歧的根本根源在于所提出的论点之外,因此,法律的任何改变都不太可能来自政治共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Analysing the Assisted Dying Bill [HL] debate 2021.

This paper considers the number of speeches which treat central topics in the House of Lords second reading of the 'Assisted Dying Bill' (October 22, 2021). It summarizes some of the principal arguments for and against the Bill according to the main categories of discussion. These were compassion; palliative care; autonomy, choice and control; legal and social effects. In summarizing the arguments thematically, it is possible to see the current state of the debate and how concerns are shared on either side, even if approaches to and proposed solutions for those problems are different. The paper concludes that the essential source of disagreement lies outside of the arguments raised, and therefore that any change in the law is not likely to arise from political consensus.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
45
×
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