制度化的不平等:协助自杀的物理标准

D. Elliot
{"title":"制度化的不平等:协助自杀的物理标准","authors":"D. Elliot","doi":"10.1093/CB/CBX017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The recent legalization of assisted dying in California, along with similar bills before other states, returned assisted suicide to the national spotlight. In Anglo-American dying bills, two criteria restrict eligibility for assisted suicide: (1) the uncoerced request to die (roughly, the “autonomy” criterion) and (2) severely deteriorated health of a certain kind (roughly, the “physical” criterion) from a six-month terminal illness (US jurisdictions) to severe and irreversible conditions (the Netherlands, Belgium). I argue that the physical criterion in any form violates the equality of respect and moral status of a large class of people, thereby degrading them, and I supplement this with theological considerations drawn from Thomas Aquinas. Even if the slope were not slippery and the autonomy firewall prevented Dutch-style mission creep, the physical criterion itself degrades tens of thousands of sick, disabled, and dying people by insinuating that their lives—but crucially, not other people’s—are “objectively” the sort of thing they might reasonably want to dispose of.","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Institutionalizing Inequality: The Physical Criterion of Assisted Suicide\",\"authors\":\"D. Elliot\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/CB/CBX017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The recent legalization of assisted dying in California, along with similar bills before other states, returned assisted suicide to the national spotlight. In Anglo-American dying bills, two criteria restrict eligibility for assisted suicide: (1) the uncoerced request to die (roughly, the “autonomy” criterion) and (2) severely deteriorated health of a certain kind (roughly, the “physical” criterion) from a six-month terminal illness (US jurisdictions) to severe and irreversible conditions (the Netherlands, Belgium). I argue that the physical criterion in any form violates the equality of respect and moral status of a large class of people, thereby degrading them, and I supplement this with theological considerations drawn from Thomas Aquinas. Even if the slope were not slippery and the autonomy firewall prevented Dutch-style mission creep, the physical criterion itself degrades tens of thousands of sick, disabled, and dying people by insinuating that their lives—but crucially, not other people’s—are “objectively” the sort of thing they might reasonably want to dispose of.\",\"PeriodicalId\":416242,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/CB/CBX017\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/CB/CBX017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

最近在加州协助死亡合法化,以及其他州之前的类似法案,使协助自杀重新成为全国关注的焦点。在英美的临终法案中,有两个标准限制了协助自杀的资格:(1)非强迫的死亡请求(大致是“自主”标准)和(2)某种严重恶化的健康状况(大致是“身体”标准),从六个月的绝症(美国司法管辖区)到严重且不可逆转的情况(荷兰,比利时)。我认为,任何形式的身体标准都违反了一大群人的平等尊重和道德地位,从而贬低了他们,我还补充了托马斯·阿奎那(Thomas Aquinas)的神学观点。即使斜坡不滑,自治防火墙防止了荷兰式的任务蔓延,身体标准本身也贬低了成千上万的病人、残疾人和垂死的人,因为它暗示他们的生命——最重要的是,不是其他人——“客观上”是他们可能合理地想要处理的那种东西。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Institutionalizing Inequality: The Physical Criterion of Assisted Suicide
The recent legalization of assisted dying in California, along with similar bills before other states, returned assisted suicide to the national spotlight. In Anglo-American dying bills, two criteria restrict eligibility for assisted suicide: (1) the uncoerced request to die (roughly, the “autonomy” criterion) and (2) severely deteriorated health of a certain kind (roughly, the “physical” criterion) from a six-month terminal illness (US jurisdictions) to severe and irreversible conditions (the Netherlands, Belgium). I argue that the physical criterion in any form violates the equality of respect and moral status of a large class of people, thereby degrading them, and I supplement this with theological considerations drawn from Thomas Aquinas. Even if the slope were not slippery and the autonomy firewall prevented Dutch-style mission creep, the physical criterion itself degrades tens of thousands of sick, disabled, and dying people by insinuating that their lives—but crucially, not other people’s—are “objectively” the sort of thing they might reasonably want to dispose of.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Theological Framework for Understanding Hope in the Clinic Responding Faithfully to Women’s Pain: Practicing the Stations of the Cross Responding to People in Pain with Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park Reclaiming Broken Bodies (or, This Is Gonna Hurt Some): Pain, Healing, and the Opioid Crisis Health Care in Service of Life: Preventative Medicine in Light of the Analogia Entis
×
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