自杀未遂者是否有权在紧急情况下不接受稳定治疗?

IF 2.3 3区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Hastings Center Report Pub Date : 2024-04-19 DOI:10.1002/hast.1576
Aleksy Tarasenko Struc
{"title":"自杀未遂者是否有权在紧急情况下不接受稳定治疗?","authors":"Aleksy Tarasenko Struc","doi":"10.1002/hast.1576","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><i>The standard of care in the United States favors stabilizing any adult who arrives in an emergency department after a failed suicide attempt, even if he appears decisionally capacitated and refuses life-sustaining treatment. I challenge this ubiquitous practice. Emergency clinicians generally have a moral obligation to err on the side of stabilizing even suicide attempters who refuse such interventions. This obligation reflects the fact that it is typically infeasible to determine these patients’ level of decisional capacitation—among other relevant information—in this unique setting. Nevertheless, I argue, stabilizing suicide attempters over their objection sometimes violates a basic yet insufficiently appreciated right of theirs—the right against bodily invasion. In such cases, it is at least</i> prima facie <i>wrong to stabilize a patient who wants to die even if they lack a contrary advance directive or medical order and suffer from no terminal physical illness</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":55073,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Center Report","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Suicide Attempters Have a Right Not to Be Stabilized in an Emergency?\",\"authors\":\"Aleksy Tarasenko Struc\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/hast.1576\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><i>The standard of care in the United States favors stabilizing any adult who arrives in an emergency department after a failed suicide attempt, even if he appears decisionally capacitated and refuses life-sustaining treatment. I challenge this ubiquitous practice. Emergency clinicians generally have a moral obligation to err on the side of stabilizing even suicide attempters who refuse such interventions. This obligation reflects the fact that it is typically infeasible to determine these patients’ level of decisional capacitation—among other relevant information—in this unique setting. Nevertheless, I argue, stabilizing suicide attempters over their objection sometimes violates a basic yet insufficiently appreciated right of theirs—the right against bodily invasion. In such cases, it is at least</i> prima facie <i>wrong to stabilize a patient who wants to die even if they lack a contrary advance directive or medical order and suffer from no terminal physical illness</i>.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55073,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hastings Center Report\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hastings Center Report\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.1576\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Center Report","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.1576","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

美国的医疗标准倾向于稳定任何自杀未遂后到达急诊科的成年人,即使他看起来有决定能力并拒绝维持生命的治疗。我对这种无处不在的做法提出质疑。急诊临床医生一般都有道德义务,即使自杀未遂者拒绝接受此类干预,他们也有义务稳定其病情。这一义务反映了这样一个事实,即在这种特殊情况下,通常无法确定这些患者的决策能力水平以及其他相关信息。然而,我认为,不顾自杀未遂者的反对而对其进行稳定治疗,有时会侵犯他们的一项基本但却未得到充分重视的权利--身体不受侵犯的权利。在这种情况下,对想死的病人进行稳定治疗至少表面上是错误的,即使他们没有相反的预先指示或医嘱,也没有身患绝症。
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
Do Suicide Attempters Have a Right Not to Be Stabilized in an Emergency?

The standard of care in the United States favors stabilizing any adult who arrives in an emergency department after a failed suicide attempt, even if he appears decisionally capacitated and refuses life-sustaining treatment. I challenge this ubiquitous practice. Emergency clinicians generally have a moral obligation to err on the side of stabilizing even suicide attempters who refuse such interventions. This obligation reflects the fact that it is typically infeasible to determine these patients’ level of decisional capacitation—among other relevant information—in this unique setting. Nevertheless, I argue, stabilizing suicide attempters over their objection sometimes violates a basic yet insufficiently appreciated right of theirs—the right against bodily invasion. In such cases, it is at least prima facie wrong to stabilize a patient who wants to die even if they lack a contrary advance directive or medical order and suffer from no terminal physical illness.

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
Hastings Center Report
Hastings Center Report 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
3.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Hastings Center Report explores ethical, legal, and social issues in medicine, health care, public health, and the life sciences. Six issues per year offer articles, essays, case studies of bioethical problems, columns on law and policy, caregivers’ stories, peer-reviewed scholarly articles, and book reviews. Authors come from an assortment of professions and academic disciplines and express a range of perspectives and political opinions. The Report’s readership includes physicians, nurses, scholars, administrators, social workers, health lawyers, and others.
期刊最新文献
Strategic Ethics: Physician Associations and Their Roles in Pursuing Racial Equity. The Bioethicist as Healer. Gender and Sport In Defense of Normothermic Regional Perfusion Principled Conscientious Provision: Referral Symmetry and Its Implications for Protecting Secular Conscience
×
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