Analysing the Assisted Dying Bill [HL] debate 2021.

Christopher M Wojtulewicz
{"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}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
《协助死亡法案》立法分析[HL] [j]。
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。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
45
期刊最新文献
A quantitative analysis of stored frozen surplus embryos in the UK. Moral Distress and its Impact on Healthcare Workers in a European NICU. Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Decision-Making: Gross Negligence Manslaughter and Corporate Manslaughter. Machine learning, healthcare resource allocation, and patient consent. The Fertility Fix: the Boom in Facial-matching Algorithms for Donor Selection in Assisted Reproduction in Spain.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1