{"title":"姑息治疗反对医疗协助死亡？误解和工具性反对。","authors":"Sara Patuzzo, Elisabetta Pulice, Luciano Orsi","doi":"10.1177/10499091231196302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Palliative Care (PC) and Medically Assisted Death (MAD), specifically assisted suicide and euthanasia, are distinct practices characterized by differing objectives, methods, implementation and outcomes. Representatives of PC, including scientific societies or physicians, may, in certain cases, adopt a critical stance towards MAD.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The study aims to explore the underlying reasons for such opposition.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To this end, the philosophical underpinnings and legal conditions of PC and MAD will be analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ethical and philosophical landscape of PC and MAD leads us to identify, on one hand, the Hippocratic paradigm and, on the other hand, what we call Socratic medicine. From a legal analysis perspective, the presence of intolerable suffering serves as a common ground between the two practices, albeit risking being the subject of misunderstandings and instrumental objections.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Preventing an instrumental use of PC in relation to MAD is crucial to enable the respect and the coexistence of the two practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":50810,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"853-858"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Palliative Care against Medically Assisted Death? Misunderstanding and Instrumental Objections.\",\"authors\":\"Sara Patuzzo, Elisabetta Pulice, Luciano Orsi\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10499091231196302\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Palliative Care (PC) and Medically Assisted Death (MAD), specifically assisted suicide and euthanasia, are distinct practices characterized by differing objectives, methods, implementation and outcomes. Representatives of PC, including scientific societies or physicians, may, in certain cases, adopt a critical stance towards MAD.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The study aims to explore the underlying reasons for such opposition.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To this end, the philosophical underpinnings and legal conditions of PC and MAD will be analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ethical and philosophical landscape of PC and MAD leads us to identify, on one hand, the Hippocratic paradigm and, on the other hand, what we call Socratic medicine. From a legal analysis perspective, the presence of intolerable suffering serves as a common ground between the two practices, albeit risking being the subject of misunderstandings and instrumental objections.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Preventing an instrumental use of PC in relation to MAD is crucial to enable the respect and the coexistence of the two practices.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50810,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"853-858\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091231196302\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/8/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091231196302","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景：姑息关怀（PC）和医疗协助死亡（MAD），特别是协助自杀和安乐死，是两种截然不同的做法，其目标、方法、实施和结果也各不相同。姑息治疗的代表，包括科学协会或医生，在某些情况下可能会对医学协助死亡采取批评的立场：本研究旨在探讨这种反对的根本原因：为此，将对 PC 和 MAD 的哲学基础和法律条件进行分析：从 PC 和 MAD 的伦理和哲学角度，我们可以发现，一方面是希波克拉底医学范式，另一方面是我们所说的苏格拉底医学。从法律分析的角度来看，无法忍受的痛苦的存在是这两种做法的共同点，尽管有可能成为误解和工具性反对的对象：结论：防止将 PC 用于与 MAD 相关的工具性用途，对于实现这两种实践的尊重和共存至关重 要。
Palliative Care against Medically Assisted Death? Misunderstanding and Instrumental Objections.
Context: Palliative Care (PC) and Medically Assisted Death (MAD), specifically assisted suicide and euthanasia, are distinct practices characterized by differing objectives, methods, implementation and outcomes. Representatives of PC, including scientific societies or physicians, may, in certain cases, adopt a critical stance towards MAD.
Objectives: The study aims to explore the underlying reasons for such opposition.
Methods: To this end, the philosophical underpinnings and legal conditions of PC and MAD will be analyzed.
Results: The ethical and philosophical landscape of PC and MAD leads us to identify, on one hand, the Hippocratic paradigm and, on the other hand, what we call Socratic medicine. From a legal analysis perspective, the presence of intolerable suffering serves as a common ground between the two practices, albeit risking being the subject of misunderstandings and instrumental objections.
Conclusion: Preventing an instrumental use of PC in relation to MAD is crucial to enable the respect and the coexistence of the two practices.
期刊介绍：
American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine (AJHPM) is a peer-reviewed journal, published eight times a year. In 30 years of publication, AJHPM has highlighted the interdisciplinary team approach to hospice and palliative medicine as related to the care of the patient and family. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
