“Euthanasia”: a confusing term, abused under the Nazi regime and misused in present end-of-life debate

Michalsen, Andrej; Reinhart, Konrad

doi:10.1007/s00134-006-0256-9

Cited by 29 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These accounts were based on the (mis)interpretation of publications regarding EoL decisions and the use of potentially life-shortening drugs in newborns in the Netherlands. [8][9][10][11][12][13] Decisions on when to start, withhold, or withdraw treatment in very sick newborns are among the most difficult decisions in pediatric practice. The difficulty lies to a large extent in the dilemma that is presented by 2 views: the value of life and the quality of life.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Physician Medical Decision-making at the End of Life in Newborns: Insight Into Implementation at 2 Dutch Centers

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The majority of deaths were attributable to withholding or withdrawing treatment. In most cases, the newborn had no chance to survive and prolonging of treatment could not be justified. In the remaining cases, withholding or withdrawing treatment was based on quality-of-life considerations, mostly the predicted suffering and predicted inability of verbal and nonverbal communication. Potentially life-shortening medication played a minor role as a cause of death.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Physician Medical Decision-making at the End of Life in Newborns: Insight Into Implementation at 2 Dutch Centers

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The definition of passive euthanasia was not in consonance with current medico legal literature and is thus subject to misinterpretation. [22] The Court did rule that withholding or withdrawal of life support was not illegal, and should be allowed in certain circumstances. A court procedure was recommended for all EOLD on incapacitated patients that would be practically impossible to implement in emergency and critical care situations.…”

Section: 0 the Legal Position In Indiamentioning

confidence: 99%

End-of-life care policy: An integrated care plan for the dying

Myatra

Salins

Iyer

et al. 2014

Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:The purpose was to develop an end-of-life care (EOLC) policy for patients who are dying with an advanced life limiting illness and to develop practical procedural guidelines for limiting inappropriate therapeutic medical interventions and improve the quality of care of the dying within an ethical framework and through a professional and family/patient consensus process.Evidence:The Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine (ISCCM) published its first guidelines on EOLC in 2005 [1] which was later revised in 2012.[2] Since these publications, there has been an exponential increase in empirical information and discussion on the subject. The literature reviewed observational studies, surveys, randomized controlled studies, as well as guidelines and recommendations, for education and quality improvement published across the world. The search terms were: EOLC; do not resuscitate directives; withdrawal and withholding; intensive care; terminal care; medical futility; ethical issues; palliative care; EOLC in India; cultural variations. Indian Association of Palliative Care (IAPC) also recently published its consensus position statement on EOLC policy for the dying.[3]Method:An expert committee of members of the ISCCM and IAPC was formed to make a joint EOLC policy for the dying patients. Proposals from the chair were discussed, debated, and recommendations were formulated through a consensus process. The members extensively reviewed national and international established ethical principles and current procedural practices. This joint EOLC policy has incorporated the sociocultural, ethical, and legal perspectives, while taking into account the needs and situation unique to India.

show abstract

“…The nomination of mercy deaths is, however, misleading insofar as it implies some concern, however distorted, for those who were to die. The term much used at the time was "useless eaters" which alerts us to the economic concerns of the wartime regime that those who could not be productive in times of scarcity should not be a further drain on resources ( [17], [26], p. 25, n.4). Epstein [26] observes that, although the economic argument is one that evokes little sympathy, such motives are often at the bottom of decisions today concerning euthanasia and PAS, albeit the careful data from the Dutch and Oregon programs shows no such motivation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Under either the Dutch system which has decriminalised both forms, or the current Death with Dignity Act (1997) in the state of Oregon which allows for PAS alone, figures show little evidence that disability as such has been a prominent condition of those seeking death. In the Nederlands, around 95% of requests come from patients with some form of cancer [17], and as the Third 'Remmelink' Report -the summary of the 2001 survey of the Dutch scheme -records: "There are no signs indicating an increase in lifeterminating treatment among vulnerable patient groups" (cited in [18], p. 133). A similar situation pertains in Oregon, where of the 208 people who died in the first 6 years of the law's operation, only one has been cited as a possible case of coercion ( [18], p. 131).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Deciding on Death: Conventions and Contestations in the Context of Disability

Shildrick

2008

Bioethical Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conflicts between bioethicists and disability theorists often arise over the permissibility of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Where mainstream bioethicists propose universalist guidelines that will direct action across a range of effectively disembodied situations, and take for granted that moral agency requires autonomy, feminist bioethicists demand a contextualisation of the circumstances under which moral decision making is conducted, and stress a more relational view of autonomy that does not require strict standards of independent agency. Nonetheless, neither traditional nor feminist perspectives have fully engaged with the critique of disabled people that they are consistently subjected to discriminatory, even life-threatening, practice and policy in biomedical and health care. The paper revisits some of the issues that drive the often highly polarised debate between bioethicists and disability theorists around the question of end of life decisions involving disabled people. While many bioethicists have doubtless been indifferent to the difference that disability makes, I am also concerned that the very proper demand of disability activists and theorists to scrutinise all end of life decisions for signs of discrimination and even violence has segued into something damagingly restrictive that silences internal dissension and stifles external debate. Given that euthanasia and physician assisted suicide may be issues where conventional argument on either side will founder on deeply felt convictions, I make the radical move to speculate on an entirely different, quasi-Deleuzian, approach to the value of life in order to shake up entrenched positions, and begin to think differently.

show abstract

“Euthanasia”: a confusing term, abused under the Nazi regime and misused in present end-of-life debate

Cited by 29 publications

References 19 publications

Physician Medical Decision-making at the End of Life in Newborns: Insight Into Implementation at 2 Dutch Centers

Physician Medical Decision-making at the End of Life in Newborns: Insight Into Implementation at 2 Dutch Centers

End-of-life care policy: An integrated care plan for the dying

Deciding on Death: Conventions and Contestations in the Context of Disability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About