Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

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
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 Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Randall, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Randall, F.
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?

Two lawyers and a technician

Fiona Randall

Macmillan Unit, Christchurch Hospital, Fairmile Road, Christchurch, Dorset, UK

The major arguments used to support the legalization of euthanasia are that such a move would increase autonomy both for individuals and for society as a whole, and would diminish suffering. This paper examines these two points from several angles, and concludes that, from the standpoint of society as a whole, the legalization of euthanasia would be likely to achieve the complete opposite: a reduction in autonomy and an increase in overall suffering. The involvement of doctors in euthanasia is seen as a separate debate. The medical ethic of beneficence and its importance are discussed, together with the consequent dilemmas produced if this ethic is to be retained at the same time as requesting doctors to perform euthanasia. Consequences for the doctor-patient relationship in terms of loss of trust are described. To resolve these dilemmas it is suggested that, if euthanasia were legalized, initial assessment should be by two lawyers, and the act itself performed by a technician, suitably vocationally trained.

Key Words: euthanasia • patient advocacy • quality of life

Palliative Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 3, 193-198 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/026921639300700305
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?