At least two lawsuits filed at a top European court claim Russia violated Europe's Human Rights Convention by removing organs from the recently dead without telling relatives.
1997) 44(5) NY Rev of Books 41 Assisted Suicide: The Philosophers' Brief By Ronald Dworkin, Thomas Nagel, Robert Nozick, John Rawls, T.M. Scanlon, Judith Jarvis Thomson Later this year the Supreme Court will decide two cases posing the question whether dying patients have a right to choose death rather than continued pain and suffering.We print here the brief filed as amicus curiae in these cases by the group of six moral philosophers listed above, with an introduction by Ronald Dworkin.
The most recent issue of the Hastings Center Report features two distinct levels of debate about health care reform, both of them set in motion in the feature article by philosopher David DeGrazia. DeGrazia argues for consolidating health insurance in a s
BMA, Briefing Paper on The Abortion Act 1967, November 2007 Summary of the BMA's position on the Abortion Act The BMA supports amending the Abortion Act 1967 so that, in the first trimester (up to 13 weeks): * abortion is available on the same basis of informed consent as other treatment, without the need to meet specific medical criteria * the requirement for two doctors to confirm that the abortion meets the legal criteria is removed. The BMA believes that: * any changes in relation to first trimester abortion should not impact adversely on the availability of later abortions. The BMA does not support: * any reduction in the current 24-week time limit * the extension of nurses or midwives roles in abortion under the Act * extending the current rules regarding “approved premises”.
Good Medical Practice describes what is expected of all doctors registered with the GMC. The guidance that follows, which is for all doctors, develops the duties and principles set out in Good Medical Practice and in our other guidance. It focuses on children and young people from birth until their 18th birthday
Assisted dying – a summary of the BMA’s position July 2006 At the BMA’s annual conference in Belfast on 29 June 2006, doctors voted by an overwhelming majority against legalising physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. The current policy is therefore that the BMA: (i) believes that the ongoing improvement in palliative care allows patients to die with dignity; (ii) insists that physician-assisted suicide should not be made legal in the UK; (iii) insists that voluntary euthanasia should not be made legal in the UK; (iv) insists that non-voluntary euthanasia should not be made legal in the UK; and, (v) insists that if euthanasia were legalised, there should be a clear demarcation between those doctors who would be involved in it and those who would not.
This blog is for students studying either on the MA in Medical Ethics and Law, or on the LLB Medical Law module. It will contain details of upcoming events, news, television, film and radio which might be of interest, and a link to the KCLMEL delicious bookmarks.
How should modern medicine's dramatic new powers to sustain life be employed? How should limited resources be used to extend and improve the quality of life? In this collection, Dan Brock, a distinguished philosopher and bioethicist and co-author of Deciding for Others (Cambridge, 1989), explores the moral issues raised by new ideals of shared decision making between physicians and patients. The book develops an ethical framework for decisions about life-sustaining treatment and euthanasia, and examines how these life and death decisions are transformed in health policy when the focus shifts from what is best for a patient to what is just for all patients. Professor Brock combines acute philosophical analysis with a deep understanding of the realities of clinical health policy. This is a volume for philosophers concerned with medical ethics, health policy professionals, physicians interested in bioethics, and undergraduate courses in biomedical ethics.
Although palliative care and legalised euthanasia are both based on the medical and ethical values of patient autonomy and caregiver beneficence and non-maleficence,1 they are often viewed as antagonistic causes. A popular perception, for instance, is that palliative care is the province of religiously motivated people and the advocacy of euthanasia that of agnostics or atheists.2 3 The European Association for Palliative Care has voiced concerns that legalising euthanasia would be the start of a slippery slope resulting in harm to vulnerable patients such as elderly and disabled people and that it would impede the development of palliative care by appearing as an alternative.4 Data from the Netherlands and Belgium, where euthanasia is legal, do not provide any evidence of a slippery slope.5 6 Here, we focus on the effect of the process of legalisation of euthanasia on palliative care and vice versa by reviewing the published historical, regulatory, and epidemiological evidence