CLINICAL ETHICS
The body as unwarranted life support: a new perspective
The body as unwarranted life support: a new perspective on euthanasia
Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
David Shaw
Centre for Ethics, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Department of Moral Philosophy, University of St Andrews, Edgecliffe, The Scores, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9AL, UK; dms11@st-andrews.ac.uk
Revised version received 22 January 2007
Accepted 31 January 2007
It is widely accepted in clinical ethics that removing a patient from a ventilator at the patient’s request is ethically permissible. This constitutes voluntary passive euthanasia. However, voluntary active euthanasia, such as giving a patient a lethal overdose with the intention of ending that patient’s life, is ethically proscribed, as is assisted suicide, such as providing a patient with lethal pills or a lethal infusion. Proponents of voluntary active euthanasia and assisted suicide have argued that the distinction between killing and letting die is flawed and that there is no real difference between actively ending someone’s life and "merely" allowing them to die. This paper shows that, although this view is correct, there is even less of a distinction than is commonly acknowledged in the literature. It does so by suggesting a new perspective that more accurately reflects the moral features of end-of-life situations: if a patient is mentally competent and wants to die, his body itself constitutes unwarranted life support unfairly prolonging his or her mental life.
Abbreviations: AS, assisted suicide; VAE, voluntary active euthanasia; VPE, voluntary passive euthanasia
Keywords: euthanasia; life support; assisted suicide; brain death; doctor–patient relationship
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
It is widely accepted in clinical ethics that removing a patient from a ventilator at the patient’s request is ethically permissible. This is often termed voluntary passive euthanasia (VPE), although there is controversy over this terminology and in particular over the idea that ending a patient’s life in this way is any less direct than other means.1 Conversely, voluntary active euthanasia (VAE), such as giving a patient a lethal overdose with the intention of ending that patient’s life, is ethically proscribed, as is assisted suicide (AS), such as providing a patient with lethal pills or a lethal infusion. Proponents of VAE and AS have argued that the distinction between killing and letting die is flawed, and that there is no real distinction between actively ending someone’s life and "merely" allowing them to die. This paper will argue that, while this is
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
- Full Text
- Full Text (PDF)
- Submit a response
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me when eLetters are posted
- Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
- Email this link to a friend
- Similar articles in this journal
- Similar articles in PubMed
- Add article to my folders
- Download to citation manager
- Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Topic Collections
-
Oncology
-
Clinical ethics
-
End of life decisions (geriatric medicine)
-
End of life decisions (palliative care)
-
Suicide (psychiatry)
Bookmark with
Register for free content
The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.
Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.
