Article info
The concise argument
The concise argument
Citation
The concise argument
Publication history
- First published November 30, 2009.
Online issue publication
November 30, 2009
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Institute of Medical Ethics. All rights reserved.
Other content recommended for you
- Can the Catholic Church agree to condom use by HIV-discordant couples?
- Genetic selection for deafness: the views of hearing children of deaf adults
- Can facilitated aid in dying be permitted by ‘double effect’? Some reflections from a recent New Zealand case
- The role of the principle of double effect in ethics education at US medical schools and its potential impact on pain management at the end of life
- Double effect: a useful rule that alone cannot justify hastening death
- Further clarity on cooperation and morality
- Response to Ronald M Perkin and David B Resnik: The agony of trying to match sanctity of life and patient-centred medical care
- Embryo loss and double effect
- Strengthening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation
- Conscientious objection in healthcare and the duty to refer