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.
Whether euthanasia or assisted suicide should be legalised is one of the most pressing and profound questions facing legislators, health-care professionals, their patients and indeed all members of society. Regrettably, the debate is too often characterised by rhetoric rather than reason. This book aims to inform the debate by acquainting anyone interested in this vital question with some of the major ethical, legal and clinical and theological issues involved. The essays it contains are authoritative, balanced and readable: authoritative in that they have been commissioned from some of the world's leading experts; balanced in that they reflect divergent viewpoints (including a vigorous debate between two eminent philosophers); and readable in that they should be readily intelligible to the general reader. This accessible, fair and learned collection should enlighten all who wish to be better informed about the debate surrounding this momentous issue.
Johan Bilsen, Robert Vander Stichele, Bert Broeckaert, Freddy Mortier, Luc Deliens, Changes in medical end-of-life practices during the legalization process of euthanasia in Belgium, Social Science & MedicineVolume 65, Issue 4, , August 2007, Pages 803-808. Keywords: Belgium; Euthanasia; Legalization; End-of-life decisions; Health policy
A euthanasia advocate, who was convicted in June after assisting in the death of Alzheimer's sufferer Graeme Wylie, has taken her life. Caren Jenning, 75, who was convicted of being an accessory to manslaughter after helping Mr Wylie take a lethal dose of veterinary drug Nembutal, had been suffering breast cancer.
In a blow to the euthanasia movement, a jury has found one woman guilty of the manslaughter and another an accessory to the manslaughter of Alzheimer's sufferer and former Qantas pilot Graeme Wylie. Mr Wylie's partner Shirley Justins, 59, and his long-term friend Caren Jenning, 75, were accused of plotting to kill him. Justins was found guilty of manslaughter and Jenning of being an accessory to manslaughter. Mr Wylie, 71, died in March 2006 from an overdose of the veterinary drug Nembutal, which Jenning had bought and illegally imported from Mexico, and which Justins had given to him in their Cammeray home.
Test Santé vient de publier les résultats d'une enquête sur les actes de fin de vie et l'euthanasie. Elle est le prolongement de l’enquête récente sur les soins palliatifs. Pour cela, Test Santé a donné la parole aux personnes concernées : proches, médecins et infirmiers. Il en ressort que les soins palliatifs, aussi efficaces soient-ils, n'empêchent pas certains de souhaiter mourir. L’enquête souligne le fait que la demande vient le plus souvent exclusivement du patient lui-même (47% des cas contre 38% de la famille), et c’est encore plus vrai pour les patients en soins palliatifs (61%). Par ailleurs, Test Achats constate que l’euthanasie joue un rôle dans le débat sur la qualité de la fin de vie et que celle-ci est meilleure lorsque l’euthanasie est appliquée «à un moment plus naturel de la mort » (ou même avant dans certains cas) plutôt qu’après un acharnement thérapeutique.
Ganzini and colleagues’ finding that 3 of the 18 Oregonians who received a prescription for a lethal drug met caseness criteria for depression raises concerns about the state’s Death with Dignity Act, which demands a psychiatric review only if "concern exists that the patient has a psychiatric disorder." We know that depression is common in the terminally ill and that depression may be successfully treated in this population. We know that depression may impair a person’s capacity when requesting physician assisted suicide, and we know that non-psychiatrically trained physicians are poor at detecting depression. We also know that these four facts are true for delirium in patients who are terminally ill. There is a strong argument for including mandatory psychiatric review in any legislation that enables physician assisted death, to detect and protect those who would not have requested assistance to die had they not been depressed or delirious.