In two recent papers, Hugh McLachlan, Jacob Busch and Raffaele Rodogno have criticised my new perspective on euthanasia. Each paper analyses my argument and suggests two flaws. McLachlan identifies what he sees as important points regarding the justification of legal distinctions in the absence of corresponding moral differences and the professional role of the doctor. Busch and Rodogno target my criterion of brain life, arguing that it is a necessary but not sufficient condition and that it is not generalisable. In this paper I indicate flaws in all of these criticisms, and again suggest that my perspective does add something new to the debate.
- Attitudes towards death
- care of the dying patient
- prolongation of life and euthanasia
- suicide/assisted suicide
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Linked articles 037275.
Funding Internally funded by the University of Glasgow.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- 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
- Life support and euthanasia, a perspective on Shaw's new perspective
- A case for justified non-voluntary active euthanasia: exploring the ethics of the Groningen Protocol
- Moral duties and euthanasia: why to kill is not necessarily the same as to let die
- The body as unwarranted life support: a new perspective on euthanasia
- Passive euthanasia
- Causal authorship and the equality principle: a defence of the acts/omissions distinction in euthanasia
- The ethics of killing and letting die: active and passive euthanasia
- Neonatal euthanasia: moral considerations and criminal liability
- On acts, omissions and responsibility