Title

Currently Accepted Practices That Are Known to Lead to Death, and PAS: Is There an Ethically Relevant Difference?

Authors

Thomas A. Cavanaugh, University of San FranciscoFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

1998

Abstract

A number of common and generally noncontroversial practices in the care of patients at the end of life lead to their deaths. For example, physicians honor a patient's refusal of medical intervention even when doing so leads to the patient's death. Similarly, with a patient's or surrogate's consent, physicians administer sedatives in order to relieve pain and distress at the end of life, even when it is known that doing so will cause the patient's death. In contemporary U.S. public policy, these practices are accepted as ethical and legal while physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is—for the most part—rejected in current U.S. law and public policy. Some think, however, that if one accepts practices that are known to lead to a patient's death, then one cannot reasonably reject a patient's request for a lethal dose of medication so that she may kill herself (PAS).

Comments

Article published in Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 7, 1998, pp. 373-379.

http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0963180198704062

Recommended Citation

Cavanaugh, Thomas A., "Currently Accepted Practices That Are Known to Lead to Death, and PAS: Is There an Ethically Relevant Difference?" (1998). Philosophy. 14.
https://repository.usfca.edu/phil/14