title: Euthanasia: agreeing to disagree?
abstract: In discussions about the legalisation of active, voluntary euthanasia it is sometimes claimed that what should happen in a liberal society is that the two sides in the debate "agree to disagree". This paper explores what is entailed by agreeing to disagree and shows that this is considerably more complicated than what is usually believed to be the case. Agreeing to disagree is philosophically problematic and will often lead to an unstable compromise.
authors.affiliation: Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, School of Law, Williamson Building, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. Soren.holm@manchester.ac.uk
authors.forename: Søren
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Holm
mesh_terms: D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D001293:Attitude to Death; D003657:Decision Making / Q000941:ethics; D034462:Dissent and Disputes; D033101:Euthanasia, Active, Voluntary / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006291:Health Policy; D006801:Humans; D009426:Netherlands; D011057:Politics; D016079:Refusal to Treat / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006113:United Kingdom