[Is prolonging life the ultimate goal?].
If values are projections of human interests, prolongation of life cannot always be the highest value. Since the criterion of treatment decisions such cases must be the value of life for the individual concerned, besides "passive" euthanasia--which is widely accepted--also (indirectly and--in extreme cases--also directly) "active" euthanasia may be considered. The radical difference between this position and "euthanasia" in the "Third Reich" consists in the fact that, in our case, only the wishes and interests of the patient can be relevant, and not the decisions of authorities or considerations of expenses. Concerning the problem of just distribution of scarce medical resources, which will become more of on issue in the near future, simple solutions (e.g., a general age-limit for expensive therapy) are not helpful. More promising are considerations which start from the idea of a hypothetical health insurance, on the lines of J. Rawls' "Theory of justice".
Patzig
G
G
Philosophisches Seminar der Universität, Göttingen.
D003363:Cost Control / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D005065:Euthanasia / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005066:Euthanasia, Passive / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005858:Germany; D015276:Health Care Rationing / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D008020:Life Support Care / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D011788:Quality of Life
Ist Lebensverlängerung ein höchstes Gut?