Whether the law should permit voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is one of the most vital questions facing all modern societies. Internationally, the main obstacle to legalisation has proved to be the objection that, even if they were morally acceptable in certain 'hard cases', voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide could not be effectively controlled; society would slide down a 'slippery slope' to the killing of patients who did not make a free and informed request, or for whom palliative care would (...) have offered an alternative. How cogent is this objection? This book provides the general reader with a lucid introduction to this central question in the debate, not least by reviewing the Dutch euthanasia experience. It will interest all in any country whether currently for or against legalisation, who wish to ensure that their opinions are better informed. (shrink)

During the past four decades, the Netherlands played a leading role in the debate about euthanasia and assisted suicide. Despite the claim that other countries would soon follow the Dutch legalization of euthanasia, only Belgium and the American state of Oregon did. In many countries, intense discussions took place. This article discusses some major contributions to the discussion about euthanasia and assisted suicide as written by Nigel Biggar, Arthur J. Dyck, Neil M. Gorsuch, and John Keown. They share a concern (...) that legalization will undermine a society's respect for the inviolability and sanctity of life. Moreover, the Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill is analyzed. All studies use ethical, theological, philosophical, and legal sources. All these documents include references to experiences from the Netherlands. In addition, two recent Dutch documents are analyzed which advocate further liberalization of the Dutch euthanasia practice, so as to include infants and elderly people "suffering from life". (shrink)

Article 3.4 of EC directive 89/381 requires member states to take "all necessary measures to promote Community self-sufficiency in human blood or human plasma" and, for this purpose, to "encourage the voluntary unpaid donation of blood and plasma". This paper presents an ethical case in support of the policy of voluntary, unpaid donation.

When two Christian prelates as internationally prominent as Desmond Tutu and George Carey call for the legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, their arguments merit close consideration. This article sets out and evaluates their arguments. It concludes that the prelates rehearse the superficial case regularly advanced by euthanasia campaigners and fail adequately to engage with the arguments, both principled and practical, against legalization.

Philip Reed’s interesting and welcome comparison of the expressivist case against, on the one hand, prenatal testing and abortion and, on the other, physician-assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia, indicates the relevance of the expressivist case against the latter and its resilience to criticisms of the expressivist case against the former. Advocates of PAS/VAE commonly argue that they should be lawful out of respect for autonomy: everyone has the right to choose a physician-hastened death if they meet specified conditions such (...) as ‘terminal illness’ or ‘unbearable suffering’. The focus on autonomy is distracting, for the real work of justifying PAS/VAE is done by the argument that life with the conditions specified is not ‘worth living’. Legalisation endorses, and expresses, the judgement that it is reasonable for people with those conditions to think their lives no longer worth living and obtain medical help to end them. Were the justification to respect autonomy, why limit the choice? It is small wonder, in light of the discriminatory nature of such a judgement, that disability groups have been outspoken opponents of legalisation. As society’s ‘canaries in the coalmine’ they have warned of the …. (shrink)

Nineteen ninety-six saw the publication of a major Dutch survey into euthanasia in the Netherlands. This paper outlines the main statistical findings of this survey and considers whether it shows that voluntary euthanasia is under effective control in the Netherlands. The paper concludes that although there has been some improvement in compliance with procedural requirements, the practice of voluntary euthanasia remains beyond effective control.

In 1993 The Parliament of the World's Religions produced a declaration known as A Global Ethic which set out fundamental points of agreement on moral tissues between the religions of the world. However, the declaration did not deal explicitly with medical ethics. This article examines Buddhist and Christian perspectives on euthanasia and finds that in spite of their cultural and theological differences both oppose it for broadly similar reasons. Both traditions reject consequentialist patterns of justification and espouse a 'sanctity of (...) life' position which precludes the intentional destruction of human life by act or omission. (shrink)

In the case of Ms B, the High Court ruled that as Ms B was a competent adult patient, her doctors acted unlawfully in overriding her refusal of life-preserving ventilation. This commentary considers whether this case supports the proposition that in English law the right to refuse treatment extends even to refusals which are clearly suicidal.

In April 2004 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe debated a report from its Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee , which questioned the Council of Europe’s opposition to legalising euthanasia. This article exposes the Report’s flaws, not least its superficiality and selectivity.

In an earlier article in this journal, I advanced five ethical arguments in favour of a voluntary, unpaid system of blood donation. In his reply to my article, Hugh McLachlan criticised one of those arguments, namely, the argument that an unpaid system promotes altruism and social solidarity. In this reply to Dr. McLachlan, I maintain that his criticism is misguided, and that he appears unclear not only about my own argument, but also about his own.

John Finnis is a pre-eminent legal, moral and political philosopher. This volume contains over 25 essays by leading international scholars of philosophy and law who critically engage with issues at the heart of Finnis's work.

In 1989, in the wake of the first operations to transplant fetal tissue into the brains of sufferers from Parkinson's Disease, the UK Code of Practice governing the use of the fetus for research was overhauled by an eminent committee under the chairmanship of the Reverend Dr John Polkinghorne. The Polkinghorne Report has, however, attracted remarkably little comment or analysis. This paper is believed to be the first to subject it to sustained ethical and legal scrutiny. The author concludes that, (...) although the committee's recommendations meet the major objections to the Code of Practice, the report is nevertheless vulnerable to criticism in its treatment of at least three issues: the moral status of the fetus; paternal consent to fetal use, and the ethical inter-relation of fetal use and abortion. (shrink)