Some ways that technology and terminology distort the euthanasia issue

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

    Abstract

    Technology and terminology often detract from a reasoned appraisal of the euthanasia option, especially in those discussions that argue for euthanasia's incorporation into a beneficence-based medical model. "Beneficent euthanasia," assuming there is such a thing, poses special challenges to the traditional provider-patient relationship. These challenges argue for well-defined limits of beneficence and a more equitable distribution of responsibility between participants. We should not allow technology and terminology to generate an unrealistic portrayal of patient death and its ramifications. Participants need to acknowledge their roles in the decision to kill and the obligations that those roles entail. Perhaps we can reach ethical consensus concerning euthanasia by first reasserting our span of control over the technology that can extend the near-death period and by openly discussing euthanasia's implications.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)23-31
    Number of pages9
    JournalThe Journal of Medical Humanities
    Volume14
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    StatePublished - 1 Mar 1993

    Fingerprint

    Euthanasia
    euthanasia
    Terminology
    technical language
    Technology
    Beneficence
    death
    obligation
    responsibility

    Cite this

    @article{73432cb611684948a1b2fb11b041916c,
    title = "Some ways that technology and terminology distort the euthanasia issue",
    abstract = "Technology and terminology often detract from a reasoned appraisal of the euthanasia option, especially in those discussions that argue for euthanasia's incorporation into a beneficence-based medical model. {"}Beneficent euthanasia,{"} assuming there is such a thing, poses special challenges to the traditional provider-patient relationship. These challenges argue for well-defined limits of beneficence and a more equitable distribution of responsibility between participants. We should not allow technology and terminology to generate an unrealistic portrayal of patient death and its ramifications. Participants need to acknowledge their roles in the decision to kill and the obligations that those roles entail. Perhaps we can reach ethical consensus concerning euthanasia by first reasserting our span of control over the technology that can extend the near-death period and by openly discussing euthanasia's implications.",
    author = "Chris Herrera",
    year = "1993",
    month = "3",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1007/BF01138158",
    language = "English",
    volume = "14",
    pages = "23--31",
    journal = "The Journal of Medical Humanities",
    issn = "1041-3545",
    number = "1",

    }

    Some ways that technology and terminology distort the euthanasia issue. / Herrera, Chris.

    In: The Journal of Medical Humanities, Vol. 14, No. 1, 01.03.1993, p. 23-31.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Some ways that technology and terminology distort the euthanasia issue

    AU - Herrera, Chris

    PY - 1993/3/1

    Y1 - 1993/3/1

    N2 - Technology and terminology often detract from a reasoned appraisal of the euthanasia option, especially in those discussions that argue for euthanasia's incorporation into a beneficence-based medical model. "Beneficent euthanasia," assuming there is such a thing, poses special challenges to the traditional provider-patient relationship. These challenges argue for well-defined limits of beneficence and a more equitable distribution of responsibility between participants. We should not allow technology and terminology to generate an unrealistic portrayal of patient death and its ramifications. Participants need to acknowledge their roles in the decision to kill and the obligations that those roles entail. Perhaps we can reach ethical consensus concerning euthanasia by first reasserting our span of control over the technology that can extend the near-death period and by openly discussing euthanasia's implications.

    AB - Technology and terminology often detract from a reasoned appraisal of the euthanasia option, especially in those discussions that argue for euthanasia's incorporation into a beneficence-based medical model. "Beneficent euthanasia," assuming there is such a thing, poses special challenges to the traditional provider-patient relationship. These challenges argue for well-defined limits of beneficence and a more equitable distribution of responsibility between participants. We should not allow technology and terminology to generate an unrealistic portrayal of patient death and its ramifications. Participants need to acknowledge their roles in the decision to kill and the obligations that those roles entail. Perhaps we can reach ethical consensus concerning euthanasia by first reasserting our span of control over the technology that can extend the near-death period and by openly discussing euthanasia's implications.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027572166&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1007/BF01138158

    DO - 10.1007/BF01138158

    M3 - Article

    VL - 14

    SP - 23

    EP - 31

    JO - The Journal of Medical Humanities

    JF - The Journal of Medical Humanities

    SN - 1041-3545

    IS - 1

    ER -