Article Text
Abstract
Even among advocates of legalising physician-assisted death, many argue that this should be done only once palliative care has become widely available. Meanwhile, according to them, physician-assisted death should be banned. Four arguments are often presented to support this claim, which we call the argument of lack of autonomy, the argument of existing alternatives, the argument of unfair inequalities and the argument of the antagonism between physician-assisted death and palliative care. We argue that although these arguments provide strong reasons to take appropriate measures to guarantee access to good quality palliative care to everyone who needs it, they do not justify a ban on physician-assisted death until we have achieved this goal.
- Euthanasia
- Palliative Care
- End of Life Care
- Public Policy
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Of dilemmas and tensions: a qualitative study of palliative care physicians’ positions regarding voluntary active euthanasia in Quebec, Canada
- Misconstrual of EAPC's position paper on euthanasia
- The case for physician assisted suicide: not (yet) proven
- Does legal physician-assisted dying impede development of palliative care? The Belgian and Benelux experience
- End-of-life decision-making in Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland: does place of death make a difference?
- When slippery slope arguments miss the mark: a lesson from one against physician-assisted death
- Development of palliative care and legalisation of euthanasia: antagonism or synergy?
- Safeguarding choice at the end of life
- Physician-assisted suicide and physician-assisted euthanasia: evidence from abroad and implications for UK neurologists
- Drawing the line on physician-assisted death