Two lawyers and a technician.
The major arguments used to support the legalization of euthanasia are that such a move would increase autonomy both for individuals and for society as a whole, and would diminish suffering. This paper examines these two points from several angles, and concludes that, from the standpoint of society as a whole, the legalization of euthanasia would be likely to achieve the complete opposite: a reduction in autonomy and an increase in overall suffering. The involvement of doctors in euthanasia is seen as a separate debate. The medical ethic of beneficence and its importance are discussed, together with the consequent dilemmas produced if this ethic is to be retained at the same time as requesting doctors to perform euthanasia. Consequences for the doctor-patient relationship in terms of loss of trust are described. To resolve these dilemmas it is suggested that, if euthanasia were legalized, initial assessment should be by two lawyers, and the act itself performed by a technician, suitably vocationally trained.
Randall
F
F
Macmillan Unit, Christchurch Hospital, Dorset, UK.
D026686:Beneficence; D003657:Decision Making; D028663:Ethical Theory; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D005065:Euthanasia / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D033101:Euthanasia, Active, Voluntary; D006801:Humans; D033241:Lawyers; D010166:Palliative Care; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D010817:Physician-Patient Relations; D011788:Quality of Life; D012935:Social Justice; D012945:Social Values; D013315:Stress, Psychological; D013727:Terminal Care; D035502:Trust; D035761:Wedge Argument