Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Palliative Medicine
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by ten Have, H A M J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by ten Have, H A M J
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Euthanasia: moral paradoxes

H A M J ten Have

Department of Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, University Medical Centre St Radboud, Nijmegen

Over the past 30 years, euthanasia has been under continuous debate in the Netherlands. This contribution aims to provide a moral assessment of this debate. It is argued that euthanasia should be understood within a historical context, as a protest against medical power and as a way to bring about good death. Within the euthanasia debate, two paradoxes are identified which make the issue inherently complex and hard to regulate. The first paradox results from the dialectical relation between individual autonomy and relief of suffering as the major justifications of euthanasia. Although euthanasia represents an ultimate effort to give the individual patient control over his dying, the result of the debate is an increase of medical power. The second paradox is that although euthanasia emerged from a commitment to good death, it is resulting in a reduced range of options to bring about good death.

Key Words: bioethics • death • dying • euthanasia • Netherlands • palliative care • respect for autonomy • suffering

Palliative Medicine, Vol. 15, No. 6, 505-511 (2001)
DOI: 10.1191/026921601682554003
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Palliat MedHome page
S. A Hurst and A. Mauron
The ethics of palliative care and euthanasia: exploring common values
Palliative Medicine, March 1, 2006; 20(2): 107 - 112.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Palliat MedHome page
J.-J. Georges, B. D Onwuteaka-Philipsen, G. van der Wal, A. van der Heide, and P. J van der Maas
Differences between terminally ill cancer patients who died after euthanasia had been performed and terminally ill cancer patients who did not request euthanasia
Palliative Medicine, December 1, 2005; 19(8): 578 - 586.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
S. A Hurst and A. Mauron
Assisted suicide and euthanasia in Switzerland: Authors' reply
BMJ, July 3, 2003; 327(7405): 52 - 53.
[Full Text]

Home page
 Palliat MedHome page
L. J. Materstvedt
The Euthanasia Debate Palliative care on the 'slippery slope' towards euthanasia?
Palliative Medicine, July 1, 2003; 17(5): 387 - 392.
[PDF]

Home page
 Palliat MedHome page
C. M Davies, P. Perkins, and S P Closs
Resuscitation or not?
Palliative Medicine, September 1, 2002; 16(6): 549 - 549.
[PDF]