Article info
PDFLaw, ethics and medicine
Response
On the relevance of an argument as regards the role of existential suffering in the end-of-life context
- Correspondence to Dr Jukka Varelius, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Philosophy, University of Turku, Turku FIN-20014, Finland; jukka.varelius@.utu.fi
Citation
On the relevance of an argument as regards the role of existential suffering in the end-of-life context
Publication history
- Received August 29, 2013
- Accepted September 25, 2013
- First published October 9, 2013.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
Article Versions
- Previous version (27 April 2016).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
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
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
Other content recommended for you
- Medical expertise, existential suffering and ending life
- The debate about physician assistance in dying: 40 years of unrivalled progress in medical ethics?
- A simple solution to the puzzles of end of life? Voluntary palliated starvation
- The case for physician assisted suicide: how can it possibly be proven?
- Assisted suicide and the killing of people? Maybe. Physician-assisted suicide and the killing of patients? No: the rejection of Shaw's new perspective on euthanasia
- Double effect: a useful rule that alone cannot justify hastening death
- Australian pharmacists’ perspectives on physician-assisted suicide (PAS): thematic analysis of semistructured interviews
- The case for physician assisted suicide: not (yet) proven
- Internists’ attitudes towards terminal sedation in end of life care
- Euthanasia, efficiency, and the historical distinction between killing a patient and allowing a patient to die