Causal authorship and the equality principle: a defence of the acts/omissions distinction in euthanasia

Stauch, Marc

doi:10.1136/jme.26.4.237

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1,20 Within the context of a public information day, Gallagher 21 found that almost half of people thought that treatment withdrawal was euthanasia and an Oregon study revealed much confusion in patients about their end-of-life options. 15 For some, [22][23][24][25] such confusion may be understandable because they believe that there is no moral distinction between acts or omissions that result in death. They contend that "passive" and "active" euthanasia are morally equivalent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Confusion Between Euthanasia and Other End-of-Life Decisions

Marcoux

Mishara

Durand

2007

Can J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Public opinion polls indicate that a majority of Canadians are in favour of euthanasia. However, there have been many criticisms of the validity of these findings. The objective of this study was to assess public opinion towards euthanasia while controlling for possible threats to validity indicated in the literature review.Methods: A telephone public opinion poll was conducted in 2002 with a representative sample of the general population of Quebec (n=991; response rate=49.8%). Respondents were asked about their support for euthanasia and treatment withdrawal and, for comparison, were asked a previously used question on euthanasia (Gallup) which has been criticized for methodological problems. Respondents were also asked to distinguish between euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions in hypothetical scenarios.Results: Eleven percent more people supported euthanasia with the Gallup question than the question developed in this study. Support for euthanasia (69.6%) was less prevalent than for treatment withdrawal (85.8%). Respondents who failed to distinguish between euthanasia and treatment withdrawal or withholding treatment in hypothetical scenarios were more likely to support euthanasia in public opinion poll questions. Furthermore, there is a significant relationship between opinions about the acceptability of euthanasia and inaccurate knowledge of the nature of euthanasia.Interpretation: Public opinion polls on euthanasia must be interpreted in the light of the wording of the question. Education of the population concerning euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions may be considered to be an important prerequisite to engage in public debate concerning the legalization of euthanasia.MeSH terms: Euthanasia; public opinion; withdrawing treatment; knowledge; problem formulation La traduction du résumé se trouve à la fin de l'article.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Confusion Between Euthanasia and Other End-of-Life Decisions

Marcoux

Mishara

Durand

2007

Can J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But Causation Accounts unpack this difference in terms of the different roles played by killing and allowing to die in causal explanations. Accordingly, when I kill someone, I must be understood as causing their death, but when I merely allow someone to die, it is not appropriate to describe myself as having caused their death (24,25). 17 More specifically, in killing a patient by administering a lethal injection, a doctor assumes (causal) responsibility for the patient's death, but it would be incorrect to describe a doctor's merely allowing their patient to die (by WLT) as causally responsible for the death, since it is the underlying medical condition that (proximately) causes death (25)(26)(27).…”

Section: The Causation Accountmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accordingly, when I kill someone, I must be understood as causing their death, but when I merely allow someone to die, it is not appropriate to describe myself as having caused their death (24,25). 17 More specifically, in killing a patient by administering a lethal injection, a doctor assumes (causal) responsibility for the patient's death, but it would be incorrect to describe a doctor's merely allowing their patient to die (by WLT) as causally responsible for the death, since it is the underlying medical condition that (proximately) causes death (25)(26)(27). 18 Stauch (25), for instance, argues for a necessary link between an act (commission) and causal authorship for its outcome which is not present in omissions that bring about the same outcome when no socially imposed duty to act obtains.…”

Section: The Causation Accountmentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting Real About Killing and Allowing to Die: A Critical Discussion of the Literature

Stumpf

Rogalski

2021

bioethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The moral significance of the distinction between killing and allowing to die has played a key role in debates about euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Since the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is held as morally permissible in the medical community, it follows that if there is no morally significant difference between killing and allowing to die, then there is no morally significant difference between withdrawing life-sustaining treatment or administering a lethal injection to end a patient’s life. Consistency then requires that voluntary active euthanasia (VAE) is also morally permissible. The debates over whether the distinction is morally significant have carried on for decades with little hope of consensus. We begin by surveying the literature to identify common argumentative strategies used in defending or rejecting the distinction’s significance. We observe, based on our review, that many of these strategies operate in ways that are conceptually removed from the concrete clinical situation of physicians involved in practices that lead to patient death (by withdrawal of treatment or VAE). We conclude by arguing for a novel way of moving the debate forward indicated by our reading of the literature, namely, by paying careful attention to the moral experience of physicians involved in end-of-life interventions to understand how they experience these practices. Exploring physician experience can reveal how the distinction may or may not be useful for moral deliberation and can provide the needed context to theorize about the distinction in a more empirically informed and practically useful way.

show abstract

“…As a general means of assisting analysts in their studies of different practices, a taxonomy that distinguishes active and passive euthanasia can be useful, principally as we can not usefully argue about these matters unless we are clear about what our arguments touch upon 2. Although it seems to have become received wisdom from ethicists of quite conflicting views that moral propriety can not hang merely on whether a situation obtains because of (inter alia) an agent’s action or inaction, there continue to be defences of the act/omission distinction 3 4. In his paper,1 McLachlan has attempted to add support to those who argue that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is a moral one.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%