title: Care of the dying: an ethical and historical perspective.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To provide a historical perspective, from ancient Greece to the middle of the 20th century, on ethical issues and principles commonly associated with medical care for the dying in Western civilization.
  
  
  METHODS
  Writings of noted philosophers, historians, ethicists, and physicians, as well as published legal and ethical guidelines. INFORMATION EXTRACTION: The sources used highlight the origins of various ethical principles associated with care of the dying. They also identify the opinions of prominent individuals throughout the history of medical ethics.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Devotion to medical beneficence, concern for the quality of life, and respect for the sanctity of life are all expressed in the earliest medical and philosophical writings of ancient Greece. With regard to care of the dying, these considerations led to a wide acceptance of avoiding or terminating treatment in hopeless cases. They also led to active debate regarding medicine's role in hastening the dying process. The rise of Christianity during the Middle Ages markedly suppressed such debate by strongly reinforcing the principle of sanctity of life. Later, the optimism of the enlightenment added the hope of prolonging life. Finally, modern advances in medical science have made that hope a reality of complex ethical dimensions.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Ethical debates regarding appropriate care for the dying are as old as medicine itself. Although beneficent concerns have characterized the medical community in almost every period of history, tensions have repeatedly arisen as diverse religious and philosophical ideologies have produced varying standards to define such beneficence. In the Christian world, the sanctity of life was often extolled as the paramount standard. For the ancient Greeks and Romans, and again in many post-Renaissance philosophies, quality of life considerations assumed equal or greater importance. Modern life-prolonging technologies heighten the debate by allowing these two standards to dramatically conflict, particularly in the critical care setting.
authors.affiliation: Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University School of Medicine, CA 94305-5204.
authors.forename: L T
authors.initials: LT
authors.lastname: Cowley
authors.forename: E
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Young
authors.forename: T A
authors.initials: TA
authors.lastname: Raffin
mesh_terms: D026686:Beneficence; D002835:Christianity; D032781:Codes of Ethics; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D049668:History, 15th Century; D049669:History, 16th Century; D049670:History, 17th Century; D049671:History, 18th Century; D049672:History, 19th Century; D049673:History, 20th Century; D049690:History, Ancient; D049691:History, Medieval; D038622:Internationality; D008020:Life Support Care / Q000266:history / Q000592:standards; D028683:National Socialism; D011788:Quality of Life; D012068:Religion and Medicine; D013315:Stress, Psychological; D013727:Terminal Care / Q000266:history* / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D026712:Value of Life; D028761:Withholding Treatment