Physician-assisted suicide.

F. Rosner, P. Rogatz, R. Lowenstein, H. Risemberg, A. Bennett, A. Buscaglia, E. Cassell, P. Farnsworth, A. Halpern, J. Henry
{"title":"Physician-assisted suicide.","authors":"F. Rosner, P. Rogatz, R. Lowenstein, H. Risemberg, A. Bennett, A. Buscaglia, E. Cassell, P. Farnsworth, A. Halpern, J. Henry","doi":"10.1001/ARCHINTE.1996.00040041116018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Committee on Bioethical Issues of the Medical Society of the State of New York published an article titled \"Physician-assisted suicide.\"1 The position of the Committee, consonant with that of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association,2 was that physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally inconsistent with the physician's professional role. The recently passed referendum on physician-assisted suicide in Oregon that is now pending legal disposition in the courts, the recent legalization of active euthanasia in the northwest territories of Australia, and the continuing involvement of Jack Kevorkian in assisting patients in ending their lives prompts the Committee to reiterate its position on this issue. Brief State of Controversy. Two diametrically opposing views on active euthanasia and physician-assisted dying have split both the medical community and the lay public approximately equally. One view is that a terminally ill person who is suffering severe pain or distress","PeriodicalId":19243,"journal":{"name":"New York state journal of medicine","volume":"9 1","pages":"1116-1116"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"104","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New York state journal of medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/ARCHINTE.1996.00040041116018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 104

Abstract

In Committee on Bioethical Issues of the Medical Society of the State of New York published an article titled "Physician-assisted suicide."1 The position of the Committee, consonant with that of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association,2 was that physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally inconsistent with the physician's professional role. The recently passed referendum on physician-assisted suicide in Oregon that is now pending legal disposition in the courts, the recent legalization of active euthanasia in the northwest territories of Australia, and the continuing involvement of Jack Kevorkian in assisting patients in ending their lives prompts the Committee to reiterate its position on this issue. Brief State of Controversy. Two diametrically opposing views on active euthanasia and physician-assisted dying have split both the medical community and the lay public approximately equally. One view is that a terminally ill person who is suffering severe pain or distress
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
医助自杀。
自杀从根本上与医生的职业角色不一致。俄勒冈州最近通过了关于医生协助自杀的全民公决,目前正在等待法院的法律处分,澳大利亚西北地区最近将积极安乐死合法化,以及jack Kevorkian继续参与帮助患者结束生命,这些都促使委员会重申其在这一问题上的立场。简要的争议状态。关于主动安乐死和医生协助死亡的两种截然相反的观点,在医学界和公众之间产生了大致相同的分歧。一种观点认为,患有严重疼痛或痛苦的绝症患者,不能通过现有的医疗和/或手术技术得到令人满意的缓解,或者患有无法治愈的疾病或残疾,应该有权选择结束自己的生命,并获得帮助,以实现有效、无痛和迅速的死亡。医生没有义务提供这样的帮助,但如果医生愿意,应该被允许这样做,而不必担心承担刑事或民事责任。另一种观点认为,最近医学技术和治疗的进步并不能证明改变历史悠久的道德规范是正当的,禁止医生协助自杀和主动安乐死。医生的座右铭过去是,现在是,而且永远应该是确认生命,而不是推迟或加速死亡。这种观点允许,甚至要求在某些情况下,放弃或拒绝无效或无用的药物治疗和对疼痛的关注,但不是主动杀死病人。纽约州医学协会生物伦理问题委员会立场声明。病人自主原则要求医生尊重病人放弃维持生命治疗的决策能力。后者被定义为任何医学治疗
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Amphetamine poisoning. Moles. Rugger Jersey spine. CYSTINURIA. Dextrothyroxine.
×
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