Embracing slippery slope on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia could have significant unintended consequences

Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (4):257-258 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In a recent article Joshua James Hatherley argues that, if physician-assisted suicide is morally permissible for patients suffering from somatic illnesses, it should be permissible for psychiatric patients as well. He argues that psychiatric disorders do not necessarily impair decision-making ability, that they are not necessarily treatable and that legalising PAS for psychiatric patients would not diminish research and therapeutic interest in psychiatric treatments or impair their recovery through loss of hope. However, by erasing distinction between somatic and psychiatric disorders on those grounds, he also erases distinction between healthy adults and patients essentially implying that PAS should be available to all, for all reasons or, ultimately no reason. Furthermore, as psychiatric patients are much more likely to be a source of usable organs for transplantation, their broad inclusion would strengthen the link between PAS/euthanasia and organ donation, potentially undermining both as well as diminishing already declining general trust in medical authorities and professionals and public health authorities and activists.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,435

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Easeful death: is there a case for assisted dying?Mary Warnock - 2008 - New York: Oxford University Press. Edited by Elisabeth Macdonald.
Ending Life, Morality, and Meaning.Jukka Varelius - 2013 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (3):559-574.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-03-28

Downloads
41 (#383,335)

6 months
12 (#205,030)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?