Asking to Die: Inside the Dutch Debate about Euthanasia: Inside the Dutch Debate About Euthanasia

Front Cover
David C. Thomasma
Springer Science & Business Media, Aug 31, 1998 - Medical - 584 pages
0 Reviews
claim was that he had faced a conflict of duties pitting his legal duty not to kill against his duty as a physician to relieve his patient’s unbearable suffering. He was acquitted on the important grounds of conflict of duty. These grounds are based on a concept in Dutch law called "force majeure" 4 which recognizes extenuating circumstances such as conflicts of duty. The acquittal was upheld by the Lower Court of Alkmaar, but revoked by an Amsterdam court of appeal. The case went on to the Supreme Court, but before the Supreme Court's decision was issued, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (RDMA) attempted to clarify the criteria for euthanasia that many within the profession already accepted. The RDMA proposed that physicians be permitted to perform euthanasia provided that a set of procedures had been met. Variously stated, the guidelines contain the following central provisions: Voluntary, competent, explicit, and persistent requests on the part of the • patient; Requests based on full information; • The patient is in a situation of intolerable and hopeless suffering (either • physical or mental); No further acceptable alternatives to euthanasia. All alternatives • acceptable to the patient for relief of suffering having been tried; Consultation with at least one other physician whose judgment can be • 5 expected to be independent. Indirectly, these guidelines became the criteria prosecutors used to decide whether or not to bring charges.
 

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Contents

VII
7
VIII
17
IX
18
X
20
XI
21
XII
23
XIII
24
XIV
26
LXXIX
233
LXXX
236
LXXXI
241
LXXXII
242
LXXXIII
245
LXXXIV
246
LXXXVI
251
LXXXVII
254

XV
31
XVI
35
XVII
37
XVIII
40
XIX
42
XX
46
XXI
50
XXII
53
XXIII
55
XXIV
63
XXV
71
XXVI
72
XXVII
82
XXVIII
87
XXIX
93
XXX
95
XXXI
97
XXXII
99
XXXIII
101
XXXIV
105
XXXV
112
XXXVI
114
XXXVII
116
XXXIX
117
XL
118
XLI
124
XLII
130
XLIII
135
XLIV
140
XLV
142
XLVI
143
XLVII
145
XLVIII
148
XLIX
150
L
155
LI
164
LII
184
LIII
185
LIV
189
LVI
190
LVII
194
LVIII
195
LIX
197
LX
198
LXI
200
LXII
202
LXIII
203
LXIV
205
LXV
206
LXVIII
207
LXX
208
LXXI
211
LXXII
213
LXXIII
215
LXXIV
220
LXXV
221
LXXVI
227
LXXVII
228
LXXVIII
231
LXXXVIII
257
LXXXIX
262
XC
267
XCI
268
XCII
271
XCIII
275
XCIV
277
XCV
280
XCVI
293
XCVII
303
XCVIII
309
XCIX
313
C
321
CI
327
CII
329
CIII
334
CIV
337
CV
345
CVI
349
CVII
354
CVIII
365
CIX
367
CX
373
CXI
374
CXII
376
CXIII
379
CXIV
381
CXV
385
CXVI
388
CXVII
392
CXVIII
407
CXIX
409
CXX
416
CXXI
421
CXXII
425
CXXIII
431
CXXIV
439
CXXV
449
CXXVI
455
CXXVII
462
CXXVIII
471
CXXIX
481
CXXX
485
CXXXI
486
CXXXII
488
CXXXIII
490
CXXXIV
491
CXXXV
496
CXXXVI
500
CXXXVII
501
CXXXVIII
505
CXXXIX
506
CXL
507
CXLI
508
CXLIII
510
CXLIV
515
CXLV
517
Copyright

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page xv - David C. Thomasma, Ph.D., is the Michael I. English Professor of Medical Ethics and Director of the Medical Humanities Program at Loyola University, Chicago Medical Center, and also Chief of the Ethics Consult Service and a member of the Hospital Ethics Committee.

References to this book

All Book Search results »

About the author (1998)

Edmund D. Pellegrino, M.D., is John Carroll Professor of Medicine and Medical Ethics at Georgetown University. David C. Thomasma, Ph.D., is director of the Medical Humanities Program at Loyola University of Chicago.

Bibliographic information