The moral discourse surrounding end-of-life (EoL) decisions is highly complex, and a comparison of Germany and Israel can highlight the impact of cultural factors. The comparison shows interesting differences in how patient’s autonomy and doctor’s duties are morally and legally related to each other with respect to the withholding and withdrawing of medical treatment in EoL situations. Taking the statements of two national expert ethics committees on EoL in Israel and Germany (and their legal outcome) as an example of this (...) discourse, we describe the similarity of their recommendations and then focus on the differences, including the balancing of ethical principles, what is identified as a problem, what social role professionals play, and the influence of history and religion. The comparison seems to show that Israel is more restrictive in relation to Germany, in contrast with previous bioethical studies in the context of the moral and legal discourse regarding the beginning of life, in which Germany was characterized as far more restrictive. We reflect on the ambivalence of the cultural reasons for this difference and its expression in various dissenting views on passive euthanasia and advance directives, and conclude with a comment on the difficulty in classifying either stance as more or less restrictive. (shrink)

The current article deals with the ethics and practice of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and dying. The debate about PAS must take the important legal and ethical context of medical acts at the end of life into consideration, and cannot be examined independently from physicians’ duties with respect to care for the terminally ill and dying. The discussion in Germany about active euthanasia, limiting medical intervention at the end of life, patient autonomy, advanced directives, and PAS is not fundamentally different in (...) content and arguments from discussions led in other European countries and the United States. This must be emphasized, since it is occasionally claimed that in Germany a thorough discussion could not be held with the same openness as in other countries due to Germany’s recent history. Still, it is worthwhile to portray the debate, which has been held intensively both among experts and the German public, from the German perspective. In general, it can be stated that in Germany debates about questions of medical ethics and bioethics are taking place with relatively large participation of an interested public, as shown, for instance, by the intense recent discussions about the legalisation of advanced directives on June 18 2009, the generation and use of embryonic stem cells in research or the highly difficult challenges for the prioritizing and rationing of scarce resources within the German health care system. Hence, the current article provides some insights into central medical and legal documents and the controversial public debate on the regulation of end-of-life medical care. In conclusion, euthanasia and PAS as practices of direct medical killing or medically assisted killing of vulnerable persons as “due care” is to be strictly rejected. Instead, we propose a more holistically-oriented palliative concept of a compassionate and virtuous doctor-cared dying that is embedded in an ethics of care. (shrink)

In this article I intend to describe an issue of the Dutch euthanasia practice that is not common knowledge. After some general introductory descriptions, by way of formulating a frame of reference, I shall describe the effects of this practice on patients, physicians and families, followed by a more philosophical reflection on the significance of these effects for the assessment of the authenticity of a request and the nature of unbearable suffering, two key concepts in the procedure towards euthanasia or (...) physician-assisted suicide. This article does not focus on the arguments for or against euthanasia and the ethical justification of physician-assisted dying. These arguments have been described extensively in Kimsma and Van Leeuwen (Asking to die. Inside the Dutch debate about euthanasia, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1998). (shrink)

In discussions about the legalisation of active, voluntary euthanasia it is sometimes claimed that what should happen in a liberal society is that the two sides in the debate “agree to disagree”. This paper explores what is entailed by agreeing to disagree and shows that this is considerably more complicated than what is usually believed to be the case. Agreeing to disagree is philosophically problematic and will often lead to an unstable compromise.

In this book, Stuart Hampshire argues that no individual and no modern society can avoid conflicts between incompatible moral interests.

Under other circumstances, I would have written an academic paper rehearsing the arguments for and against legalization of physician-assisted suicide: autonomy and the avoidance of pain and suffering on the pro side, the wrongness of killing, the integrity of the medical profession, and the risk of abuse, the “slippery slope,” on the con side. I’ve always supported the pro side. What this paper is, however, is a highly personal account of the challenges to my thinking about right-to-die issues. In November (...) 2008, my husband suffered a C2/C3 spinal cord injury in a bicycle collision, leaving him ventilator-dependent, almost completely paralyzed, and in the hospital—but fully alert and profoundly self-reflective. What if he wanted to die? This paper draws from two multimedia presentations—file:///Users/margaretbattin/Documents/BROOKE’S%20ACCIDENT/The%20Salt%20Lake%20Tribune %20%7C%20Multimedia:%20Metamorphosis.webarchive and file:///Users/margaretbattin/Documents/BROOKE’S%20ACCIDENT/The%20Salt%20Lake%20Tribune%20%7C%20Multi media:%20Learning%20to%20live%20again.webarchive—and personal material concerning quality of life (he’d rank at the bottom on the SF-36 and similar scales) and concerning autonomy (his own accounts, verbatim). This is a detailed portrait of a man whose life involves extraordinary suffering but also luminous experience some of the time. It only makes the question harder: What if he wanted to die? (shrink)

Attitudes to questions of whether physician-assisted dying should be legalised in the UK, reflect one of the greatest challenges to moral stance in health care for both individuals and professional bodies, not least as indicated by public opinion. However, public opinion is a seductively deceptive notion, seemingly readily identifiable but in practice multifarious. At best, consensus regarding public opinion and assisted dying is illusory, sometimes transient and what is relevant in this matter is a comprehension of both majority (popular) opinion (...) and vocal dissent, but which do not them selves have a simple relationship with Parliamentary attitudes and legislation. Arguably, an increasingly important consideration to take account of is the influence of increasing population diversity. (shrink)