安乐死:对医学伦理的挑战

R. Nunes, G. Rêgo
{"title":"安乐死:对医学伦理的挑战","authors":"R. Nunes, G. Rêgo","doi":"10.4172/2155-9627.1000282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For many decades the euthanasia debate is particularly controversial in modern societies. Indeed, in the northern European tradition, as well as in countries of Anglo-American influence, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide and other end-of-life decisions are an important source of social debate. It is well known that in many circumstances, medical decision-making often contributes to hasten the death of a particular patient and different societies have different understandings with regard to the specific role of health professionals in this setting. Moreover, death usually happens in the hospital, far away from family and friends, at an environment more prone to loneliness and abandonment. The rise of the hospice movement in the sixties and, more recently of palliative care as a new philosophical and practical approach to death and dying, is also a sign that this issue should be properly addressed as a major cultural transition. Indeed, as suggested by John Keown in his book Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy “whether the law should permit voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is one of the most vital questions facing all modern societies” [1].","PeriodicalId":89408,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical research & bioethics","volume":"7 1","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4172/2155-9627.1000282","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Euthanasia: A Challenge to Medical Ethics\",\"authors\":\"R. Nunes, G. Rêgo\",\"doi\":\"10.4172/2155-9627.1000282\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"For many decades the euthanasia debate is particularly controversial in modern societies. Indeed, in the northern European tradition, as well as in countries of Anglo-American influence, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide and other end-of-life decisions are an important source of social debate. It is well known that in many circumstances, medical decision-making often contributes to hasten the death of a particular patient and different societies have different understandings with regard to the specific role of health professionals in this setting. Moreover, death usually happens in the hospital, far away from family and friends, at an environment more prone to loneliness and abandonment. The rise of the hospice movement in the sixties and, more recently of palliative care as a new philosophical and practical approach to death and dying, is also a sign that this issue should be properly addressed as a major cultural transition. Indeed, as suggested by John Keown in his book Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy “whether the law should permit voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is one of the most vital questions facing all modern societies” [1].\",\"PeriodicalId\":89408,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical research & bioethics\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"1-5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4172/2155-9627.1000282\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical research & bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9627.1000282\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical research & bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9627.1000282","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

几十年来,关于安乐死的争论在现代社会尤其具有争议性。事实上,在北欧传统以及受英美影响的国家,安乐死、医生协助自杀和其他临终决定都是社会辩论的重要来源。众所周知,在许多情况下,医疗决策往往有助于加速特定病人的死亡,不同的社会对保健专业人员在这种情况下的具体作用有不同的理解。此外,死亡通常发生在医院,远离家人和朋友,在一个更容易产生孤独和被遗弃的环境中。六十年代临终关怀运动的兴起,以及最近缓和治疗作为一种新的哲学和实践方法来对待死亡和临终,也表明这个问题应该作为一个重大的文化转型来妥善解决。事实上,正如约翰·基翁在他的《安乐死、伦理与公共政策》一书中所建议的那样,“法律是否应该允许自愿安乐死或医生协助自杀是所有现代社会面临的最重要问题之一”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Euthanasia: A Challenge to Medical Ethics
For many decades the euthanasia debate is particularly controversial in modern societies. Indeed, in the northern European tradition, as well as in countries of Anglo-American influence, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide and other end-of-life decisions are an important source of social debate. It is well known that in many circumstances, medical decision-making often contributes to hasten the death of a particular patient and different societies have different understandings with regard to the specific role of health professionals in this setting. Moreover, death usually happens in the hospital, far away from family and friends, at an environment more prone to loneliness and abandonment. The rise of the hospice movement in the sixties and, more recently of palliative care as a new philosophical and practical approach to death and dying, is also a sign that this issue should be properly addressed as a major cultural transition. Indeed, as suggested by John Keown in his book Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy “whether the law should permit voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is one of the most vital questions facing all modern societies” [1].
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
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