'No' to the intention/foresight distinction in medical end-of-life decisions

Medicine and Law

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 643-649

  Kuhse, Helga ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

POTASSIUM CHLORIDE;

ARTIFICIAL VENTILATION; CARDIOTOXICITY; CRIMINAL LAW; DEATH; DECISION MAKING; DISTRESS SYNDROME; DYING; EUTHANASIA; LETHAL DOSE; LIFE; MAINTENANCE OF RESPIRATION AND CIRCULATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; MORALITY; PAIN; PATIENT RIGHT; PHARYNX CANCER; RESPIRATORY FAILURE; REVIEW; TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT; VENTILATOR;

EID: 0031545668     PISSN: 07231393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (12)

1. Until the passage of the Northern Territory of Australia Rights of the Terminally 111 Act 1995, the Netherlands has been the only country in the world where doctors could openly and intentionally end the lives of terminally or incurably ill patients, at the patient's request. Although euthanasia and medically assisted suicide remain illegal in that country, the Dutch Parliament has recognised that doctors practising it should not be persecuted if they comply with certain guidelines
2. This figure refers to the situation in the Netherlands in 1990, as provided in the comprehensive study by PJ. van der Maas, J.J. M. van Delden, J. Pijnenborg and C.W.N. Looman: "Euthanasia and Other Medical Decisions Concerning the End of Life", Lancet, 338 (14 September 1991), pp. 669-74. According to a 1996 Australian study, the figure is 65% (See Helga Kuhse, Peter Singer, peter Baume, Malcolm Clark and Maurice Rickard "End-of-Life Decisions in Australian Medical Practice",Australian Medical Journal, (February 17, 1997).
3. This figure refers to the situation in the Netherlands in 1990, as provided in the comprehensive study by PJ. van der Maas, J.J. M. van Delden, J. Pijnenborg and C.W.N. Looman: "Euthanasia and Other Medical Decisions Concerning the End of Life", Lancet, 338 (14 September 1991), pp. 669-74. According to a 1996 Australian study, the figure is 65% (See Helga Kuhse, Peter Singer, peter Baume, Malcolm Clark and Maurice Rickard "End-of-Life Decisions in Australian Medical Practice",Australian Medical Journal, (February 17, 1997).
4. Compassion in Dying versus State of Washington, No. 94-3534, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, March 6, 1996 WL94848 (9th Cic.[Wash] ).
5. T.E. Quill, S.C. Klagsburn and H. Grossman versus D.C. Vacco, G.E. Pataki, R.M. Morgenthau, Docket No. 95-7028, decided April 2, 1996, United States Courts of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
6. J. Griffith: "The Regulation of Euthanasia and Related Medical Procedures That Shorten Life in The Netherlands", Medical Law International, 1 (1994), 137-58.
7. I. Kennedy: "The Quality Of Mercy: Patients, Doctors and Dying", Upjohn Lecture, delivered at the Royal Society, London, on 25 April 1994.
8. Monash Bioethics Review, 15 (April 1996), 5-6.
9. J. Griffith: "The Regulation of Euthanasia...", op.cit.
10. Ibid.
11. P.J. van der Maas, J.J.M. van Delden, L. Pijnenborg and C.W.N. Looman: "Euthanasia and Other Medical Decisions...", op.cit.
12. Helga Kuhse, Peter Singer, Peter Baume, Malcolm Clark and Maurice Rickard "End-of-Life Decisions...." op. cit.