Comparative reflections upon the Assisted Dying Bill 2013
Identifieur interne : 000134 ( Main/Exploration ); précédent : 000133; suivant : 000135Comparative reflections upon the Assisted Dying Bill 2013
Auteurs : Samantha Halliday [Royaume-Uni]Source :
- Medical law international [ 0968-5332 ] ; 2013.
English descriptors
- Teeft :
- Absolute prohibition, Access assistance, Active termination, Additional safeguards, Advance directives, Advance request, American acts, American counterpart, American model, Annual report, Annual reports, Anticipatory requests, Artificial nutrition, Belgian acts, Belgian approach, Belgian model, Belgium, Benelux countries, Best interests, Bland, Care criteria, Certain circumstances, Chabot case, Clive seale, Commission report, Compliance, Compliance monitoring, Comprehensive care, Consultation requirement, Consulting doctor, Consulting doctors, Cultural context, Death certificate, Degenerative diseases, Disabled people, Double effect, Dutch, Dutch committees, Dutch experience, Dutch review committees, Dutch rrcs, Dutch supreme court, Effective safeguards, European model, European neighbours, Euthanasia, Euthanasia requests, Experiential interests, Federale controle, First request, Front safeguards, General practice, Good practice, Greater openness, Halliday, Health care, Health journal, Health policy, High degree, Human dignity, Human life, Inappropriate requests, Independent commission, Individual choice, Knmg, Last resort, Legal euthanasia, Legal framework, Legalisation, Legislation authorising, Lethal drugs, Linda ganzini, Lord donaldson, Lord goff, Lord mustill, Lord steyn, Luxemburg acts, Many people, Margaret battin, Medical assistance, Medical care, Medical ethics, Medical opinion, Medical profession, Medical treatment, Mental capacity, Monitoring commission, Motor neurone disease, Multiple understandings, Netherlands, Notre dame, Notre dame press, Oregon, Oregon death, Oregon dwda, Oregon physicians, Other jurisdictions, Other members, Palliative, Palliative care, Palliative care filter, Palliative medicine, Palliative sedation, Pathological condition, Patient choice, Peer review, Penal code, Personal dignity, Physicianassisted suicide, Precedent autonomy, Procedural safeguards, Public prosecutions, Qualitative study, Realistic alternative, Reasonable alternative, Recognise, Regulatory scheme, Request assistance, Request euthanasia, Rerc, Review committees, Robust, Robust framework, Robust upfront safeguards, Safeguard, Schoonheim case, Second evaluation, Second opinion, Second opinions, Sedation, September, Serious nature, Short term, Slippery slope, Slippery slope argument, Social workers, Statutory regulation, Subjective assessment, Such cases, Such decisions, Such regulation, Sufficient safeguards, Supreme court, Syringe driver, Systematic review, Terminal illness, Terminal sedation, Terminally, Third party, Tijdschrift voor geneeskunde, Twilight zone, Universal dignity, Valid request, Vermont patient choice, Voluntary termination, Vulnerable groups, Walton committee, Washington death, Wetgevende kamers, Whilst.
Abstract
Whilst assisted dying remains topical, a number of courts and committees have considered the potential legalisation of active voluntary euthanasia, and/or physician-assisted suicide, but concluded that legalisation should not occur. Significantly this conclusion is attributed not simply to concern to uphold the sanctity of life, but more commonly the reasons given stress that it would simply not be possible to legalise assisted dying whilst incorporating sufficient safeguards within the legislation to protect the vulnerable. This article considers the way in which the principle of dignity has been asserted to demand both that a person has a right to die with dignity (where dignity is constructed as entailing a choice to die with medical assistance) and that the prohibition of assisted dying be maintained in order to ensure the dignity of the person, regardless of whether that person is disabled or terminally ill. It assesses the validity of that argument by evaluating the safeguards incorporated into the Assisted Dying Bill 2013 and reflecting upon the experience of the statutory regulation of assisted dying in other jurisdictions: the Netherlands, Belgium and Oregon. It is concluded that it is possible to construct legislation authorising assisted dying in strictly controlled circumstances and that far from exposing the vulnerable to the risk of abuse, such regulation would provide much greater protection of all lives than the current system based upon an absolute prohibition of killing.
Url:
DOI: 10.1177/0968533213508129
Affiliations:
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream Istex, to step Corpus: 000A52
- to stream Istex, to step Curation: 000A51
- to stream Istex, to step Checkpoint: 000010
- to stream Main, to step Merge: 000132
- to stream Main, to step Curation: 000134
Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Comparative reflections upon the Assisted Dying Bill 2013</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Halliday, Samantha" sort="Halliday, Samantha" uniqKey="Halliday S" first="Samantha" last="Halliday">Samantha Halliday</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:A004ED3A4CCD2D1D2885E0924161C1E90CFBF478</idno><date when="2013" year="2013">2013</date><idno type="doi">10.1177/0968533213508129</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/A004ED3A4CCD2D1D2885E0924161C1E90CFBF478/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000A52</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000A52</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Curation">000A51</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Checkpoint">000010</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Checkpoint">000010</idno><idno type="wicri:doubleKey">0968-5332:2013:Halliday S:comparative:reflections:upon</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Merge">000132</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Curation">000134</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Exploration">000134</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Comparative reflections upon the Assisted Dying Bill 2013</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Halliday, Samantha" sort="Halliday, Samantha" uniqKey="Halliday S" first="Samantha" last="Halliday">Samantha Halliday</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country xml:lang="fr">Royaume-Uni</country><wicri:regionArea>University of Leeds</wicri:regionArea></affiliation><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country xml:lang="fr">Royaume-Uni</country><wicri:regionArea>University of Leeds</wicri:regionArea></affiliation><affiliation wicri:level="4"><orgName type="university">Université de Leeds</orgName><country>Royaume-Uni</country><placeName><settlement type="city">Leeds</settlement><region type="country">Angleterre</region><region type="région" nuts="1">Yorkshire-et-Humber</region></placeName></affiliation><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country wicri:rule="url">Royaume-Uni</country></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Medical law international</title><idno type="ISSN">0968-5332</idno><idno type="eISSN">2047-9441</idno><imprint><publisher>SAGE Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage UK: London, England</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2013">2013</date><biblScope unit="volume">13</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2-3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="135">135</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="167">167</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0968-5332</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0968-5332</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Absolute prohibition</term><term>Access assistance</term><term>Active termination</term><term>Additional safeguards</term><term>Advance directives</term><term>Advance request</term><term>American acts</term><term>American counterpart</term><term>American model</term><term>Annual report</term><term>Annual reports</term><term>Anticipatory requests</term><term>Artificial nutrition</term><term>Belgian acts</term><term>Belgian approach</term><term>Belgian model</term><term>Belgium</term><term>Benelux countries</term><term>Best interests</term><term>Bland</term><term>Care criteria</term><term>Certain circumstances</term><term>Chabot case</term><term>Clive seale</term><term>Commission report</term><term>Compliance</term><term>Compliance monitoring</term><term>Comprehensive care</term><term>Consultation requirement</term><term>Consulting doctor</term><term>Consulting doctors</term><term>Cultural context</term><term>Death certificate</term><term>Degenerative diseases</term><term>Disabled people</term><term>Double effect</term><term>Dutch</term><term>Dutch committees</term><term>Dutch experience</term><term>Dutch review committees</term><term>Dutch rrcs</term><term>Dutch supreme court</term><term>Effective safeguards</term><term>European model</term><term>European neighbours</term><term>Euthanasia</term><term>Euthanasia requests</term><term>Experiential interests</term><term>Federale controle</term><term>First request</term><term>Front safeguards</term><term>General practice</term><term>Good practice</term><term>Greater openness</term><term>Halliday</term><term>Health care</term><term>Health journal</term><term>Health policy</term><term>High degree</term><term>Human dignity</term><term>Human life</term><term>Inappropriate requests</term><term>Independent commission</term><term>Individual choice</term><term>Knmg</term><term>Last resort</term><term>Legal euthanasia</term><term>Legal framework</term><term>Legalisation</term><term>Legislation authorising</term><term>Lethal drugs</term><term>Linda ganzini</term><term>Lord donaldson</term><term>Lord goff</term><term>Lord mustill</term><term>Lord steyn</term><term>Luxemburg acts</term><term>Many people</term><term>Margaret battin</term><term>Medical assistance</term><term>Medical care</term><term>Medical ethics</term><term>Medical opinion</term><term>Medical profession</term><term>Medical treatment</term><term>Mental capacity</term><term>Monitoring commission</term><term>Motor neurone disease</term><term>Multiple understandings</term><term>Netherlands</term><term>Notre dame</term><term>Notre dame press</term><term>Oregon</term><term>Oregon death</term><term>Oregon dwda</term><term>Oregon physicians</term><term>Other jurisdictions</term><term>Other members</term><term>Palliative</term><term>Palliative care</term><term>Palliative care filter</term><term>Palliative medicine</term><term>Palliative sedation</term><term>Pathological condition</term><term>Patient choice</term><term>Peer review</term><term>Penal code</term><term>Personal dignity</term><term>Physicianassisted suicide</term><term>Precedent autonomy</term><term>Procedural safeguards</term><term>Public prosecutions</term><term>Qualitative study</term><term>Realistic alternative</term><term>Reasonable alternative</term><term>Recognise</term><term>Regulatory scheme</term><term>Request assistance</term><term>Request euthanasia</term><term>Rerc</term><term>Review committees</term><term>Robust</term><term>Robust framework</term><term>Robust upfront safeguards</term><term>Safeguard</term><term>Schoonheim case</term><term>Second evaluation</term><term>Second opinion</term><term>Second opinions</term><term>Sedation</term><term>September</term><term>Serious nature</term><term>Short term</term><term>Slippery slope</term><term>Slippery slope argument</term><term>Social workers</term><term>Statutory regulation</term><term>Subjective assessment</term><term>Such cases</term><term>Such decisions</term><term>Such regulation</term><term>Sufficient safeguards</term><term>Supreme court</term><term>Syringe driver</term><term>Systematic review</term><term>Terminal illness</term><term>Terminal sedation</term><term>Terminally</term><term>Third party</term><term>Tijdschrift voor geneeskunde</term><term>Twilight zone</term><term>Universal dignity</term><term>Valid request</term><term>Vermont patient choice</term><term>Voluntary termination</term><term>Vulnerable groups</term><term>Walton committee</term><term>Washington death</term><term>Wetgevende kamers</term><term>Whilst</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Whilst assisted dying remains topical, a number of courts and committees have considered the potential legalisation of active voluntary euthanasia, and/or physician-assisted suicide, but concluded that legalisation should not occur. Significantly this conclusion is attributed not simply to concern to uphold the sanctity of life, but more commonly the reasons given stress that it would simply not be possible to legalise assisted dying whilst incorporating sufficient safeguards within the legislation to protect the vulnerable. This article considers the way in which the principle of dignity has been asserted to demand both that a person has a right to die with dignity (where dignity is constructed as entailing a choice to die with medical assistance) and that the prohibition of assisted dying be maintained in order to ensure the dignity of the person, regardless of whether that person is disabled or terminally ill. It assesses the validity of that argument by evaluating the safeguards incorporated into the Assisted Dying Bill 2013 and reflecting upon the experience of the statutory regulation of assisted dying in other jurisdictions: the Netherlands, Belgium and Oregon. It is concluded that it is possible to construct legislation authorising assisted dying in strictly controlled circumstances and that far from exposing the vulnerable to the risk of abuse, such regulation would provide much greater protection of all lives than the current system based upon an absolute prohibition of killing.</div></front></TEI><affiliations><list><country><li>Royaume-Uni</li></country><region><li>Angleterre</li><li>Yorkshire-et-Humber</li></region><settlement><li>Leeds</li></settlement><orgName><li>Université de Leeds</li></orgName></list><tree><country name="Royaume-Uni"><noRegion><name sortKey="Halliday, Samantha" sort="Halliday, Samantha" uniqKey="Halliday S" first="Samantha" last="Halliday">Samantha Halliday</name></noRegion><name sortKey="Halliday, Samantha" sort="Halliday, Samantha" uniqKey="Halliday S" first="Samantha" last="Halliday">Samantha Halliday</name><name sortKey="Halliday, Samantha" sort="Halliday, Samantha" uniqKey="Halliday S" first="Samantha" last="Halliday">Samantha Halliday</name><name sortKey="Halliday, Samantha" sort="Halliday, Samantha" uniqKey="Halliday S" first="Samantha" last="Halliday">Samantha Halliday</name></country></tree></affiliations></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Psychologie/explor/BernheimV1/Data/Main/Exploration
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000134 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Exploration/biblio.hfd -nk 000134 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Psychologie
|area= BernheimV1
|flux= Main
|étape= Exploration
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:A004ED3A4CCD2D1D2885E0924161C1E90CFBF478
|texte= Comparative reflections upon the Assisted Dying Bill 2013
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33. |  |