A Reply to Some Standard Objections to Euthanasia

Journal of Applied Philosophy 14 (1):43-47 (1997)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The purpose here is to cast doubt on some utilitarian non‐rights‐based arguments that are generally thought to be decisive objections to voluntary and non‐voluntary euthanasia. The aim is not to prove that euthanasia is morally vindicated (although I think rights‐based arguments can do this) but rather to contend that such arguments, far from being decisively anti‐euthanasia, can be made to point equally in the opposite direction.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

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

Euthanasia and Common Sense: A Reply to Garcia.G. Seay - 2011 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36 (3):321-327.
Conceptual closure in Anselm's proof: reply to Tony Roark.Gyula Klima - 2003 - History and Philosophy of Logic 24 (2):131-134.
Euthanasia: the moral issues.Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum (eds.) - 1989 - Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.
Euthanasia.Lisa Yount (ed.) - 2002 - San Diego, Calif.: Greenhaven Press.
Euthanasia and Eudaimonia.David Shaw - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (9):530-533.
An embarrassing question about reproduction.John Haldane - 1992 - Philosophical Psychology 5 (4):427-431.
Euthanasia in china: A report.Shi Pdau - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (2).

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-10

Downloads
21 (#718,251)

6 months
3 (#992,474)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Should it be legal to assist suicide?Harry Lesser - 2010 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 16 (2):330-334.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references