Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:19:06.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Good Death, Virtue, and Physician-Assisted Death: An Examination of the Hospice Way of Death

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

Franklin G. Miller
Franklin G. Miller
Affiliation:
an assistant professor of Medical Education at the Center for Biomedical Ethics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The problem of physician-assisted death (PAD), assisted suicide and active euthanasia, has been debated predominantly in the ethically familiar vocabulary of rights, duties, and consequences. Patient autonomy and the right to die with dignity vie with the duty of physicians to heal, but not to kill, and the specter of “the slippery slope” from voluntary euthanasia as a last resort for patients suffering from terminal illness to PAD on demand and mercy killing of “hopeless” incompetent patients. Another dimension of the debate over PAD concerns the evaluative question of what constitutes a good death. At stake are Issues of character and virtue in the face of death and dying and their Implications for legitimizing the practice of PAD. Critics of PAD argue that “natural” death in the context of comfort care, as provided by hospice programs, is the good death. In contrast, PAD amounts to an easy way out, an evasion of the ultimate human challenge and task of dying. Because hospice care is clearly preferable to PAD, the former should be encouraged and the latter remain prohibited.

Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , Winter 1995 , pp. 92 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Miller, FG, Fletcher, JC. The case for legalized Euthanasia. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 1993;36:159–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Nuland, SB. How We Die. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994.Google ScholarPubMed

3. See note 2, 1994: xvi.

4. Stoddard, S. The Hospice Movement. Rev. ed.New York: Vintage, 1992;Google ScholarCundiff, D. Euthanasia Is Not the Answer. Totowa, New Jersey: Humana Press, 1992;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMiller, RJ. Hospice care as an alternative to euthanasia. Law, Medicine & Health 1992;20:127–32;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMedPost, SG. American culture and good death. In: Inquiries in Bioethics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1993:79–93.Google Scholar

5. See note 4. Miller, . 1994:132.Google Scholar

6. See note 4. Post, . 1993:79.Google Scholar

7. Pellegrino, E. Doctors must not kill. The Journal of Clinical Ethics 1992;3:97.Google Scholar

8. Miller, FG. Is active killing of patients always wrong? Journal of Clinical Ethics 1991;2:130–2;Google ScholarPubMedQuill, TE. Death and dignity: a case of individualized decision making. New England Journal of Medicine 1991;324:691–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. See note 8. Quill, . 1991:693.Google Scholar

10. Mill, JS. On liberty. In: Everyman's Library. London: J.M. Dent, 1971:125.Google Scholar

11. Byock, IR. Kevorkian: right problem, wrong solution. The Washington Post 1994;01 17:A23.Google Scholar

12. Bernat, JL, Gert, B, Mogielnicki, RP. Patient refusal of hydration and nutrition. Archives of Internal Medicine 1993;153:2713–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

13. Gay, P. Freud. New York: Norton, 1988:649.Google Scholar

14. See note 13. Gay, . 1988:651.Google Scholar

15. Kleinman, A. The Illness Narratives. New York: Basic Books, 1988:154.Google Scholar

16. See note 4. Cundiff, . 1992:61.Google Scholar

17. Strauss, D. The liberal virtues. In: Chapman, JW, Galston, WA, eds. Virtue. New York: New York University Press, 1992:200–1.Google Scholar

18. Macedo, S. Liberal Virtues. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990:233.Google Scholar

19. See note 10. Mill. 1971.