Are the Distinctions Drawn in the Debate about End-of-Life Decision Making “Principled”? If Not, How Much Does it Matter?
Are the Distinctions Drawn in the Debate about End-of-Life Decision Making “Principled”? If Not, How Much Does it Matter?
复制标题
关于临终决策的争论中的区别是否“有原则”？如果没有，这有多重要？
DOI：
10.1111/j.1748-720x.2012.00647.x
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Yale Kamisar
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Yale Kamisar
我有时想知道，一些医生协助自杀（PAS）或医生协助死亡（PAD）的支持者是否认为他们拥有“有尊严的死亡”和“善终”等吸引人的短语的版权，因此，如果你反对PAS或PAD，那么你一定会反对“有尊严的死亡”或“善终”。如果去掉“援助死亡”或“对临终者的同情关怀”等短语的引号，我也不反对这种临终关怀。确实，怎么会有人反对这种类型的护理呢？我不想像蒂莫西·奎尔医生那样抛弃垂死的病人。不幸的是，尽管实现预期结果并不总是那么容易，但我同意他的观点，即医学的目标应该是“帮助人们安详地死去，帮助他们获得好的死亡”——或者至少是在这种情况下“最好的”死亡。然而，当奎尔教授敦促我们改变大多数州的法律，以便在某些情况下患者可以通过致命药物实现“善意的死亡”或“有尊严的”死亡时，我与他分道扬镳。
I sometimes wonder whether some proponents of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) or physician-assisted death (PAD) think they own the copyright to such catchy phrases as “death with dignity” and “a good death” so that if you are against PAS or PAD, then you must be against a dignified death or a good death. If one removes the quotation marks around phrases like “aid-in-dying” or “compassionate care for the dying,” I am not opposed to such end-of-life care either. Indeed, how could anybody be against this type of care? I do not want to abandon dying patients anymore than Dr. Timothy Quill does. Although, unfortunately, it will not always be easy to achieve the desired result, I agree with him that it ought to be a goal of medicine “to help people die well, to help them receive a good death” — or at least “the best possible” death under the circumstances. I part company with Professor Quill, however, when he urges us to change the law in the majority of our states so that in some circumstances patients may achieve a “good death” or a “dignified” one by means of lethal drugs.