Article Text
PDFResponse
The sensitivity argument against child euthanasia
Abstract
Is there a moral difference between euthanasia for terminally ill adults and euthanasia for terminally ill children? Luc Bovens considers five arguments to this effect, and argues that each is unsuccessful. In this paper, I argue that Bovens' dismissal of the sensitivity argument is unconvincing.
- Euthanasia
- Palliative Care
- Clinical Ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Against euthanasia for children: a response to Bovens
- Child euthanasia: should we just not talk about it?
- Making decisions to limit treatment in life-limiting and life-threatening conditions in children: a framework for practice
- Do vets and doctors face similar ethical challenges?
- Navigating parental requests: considering the relational potential standard in paediatric end-of-life care in the paediatric intensive care unit
- Ethics briefing
- What people close to death say about euthanasia and assisted suicide: a qualitative study
- A case for justified non-voluntary active euthanasia: exploring the ethics of the Groningen Protocol
- Ethics briefings
- A threshold of significant harm (f)or a viable alternative therapeutic option?