Search

One major argument against prohibiting euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is that there is no rational basis for distinguishing between killing and allowing to die: if we permit patients to die by forgoing life-sustaining treatments, then we also ought to permit euthanasia and PAS. In this paper, the author argues, contra this claim, that it is in fact coherent to differentiate between killing and allowing to die. To develop this argument, the author provides an analysis of Saint Augustine's distinction between martyrdom and suicide, highlighting the relevance of intention in the assessment of an agent's actions. As a general matter of ethics, the intentions of agents, not just the outcomes of their actions, matter enormously for drawing distinctions between what is permissible and what is impermissible. Constructing an Augustinian account of this distinction between killing and allowing to die, the author argues that it is coherent to hold that assisted suicide is wrong, while also accepting that it is permissible to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A HYPOTHETICAL CASE Mrs. Mary Carpenter has experienced post-menopausal vaginal bleeding. Her gynecologist, Dr. John, diagnosed endometrial cancer and recommended a hysterectomy. She and her husband, Joe, go to visit [...]

Purpose: This article presents a model for research and practice that expands on the biopsychosocial model to include the spiritual concerns of patients. Design and Methods: Literature review and philosophical inquiry were used. Results: The healing professions should serve the needs of patients as whole persons. Persons can be considered beings-in-relationship, and illness can be considered a disruption in biological relationships that in turn affects all the other relational aspects of a person. Spirituality concerns a person's relationship with transcendence. Therefore, genuinely holistic health care must address the totality of the patient's relational existence--physical, psychological, social, and spiritual. The literature suggests that many patients would like health professionals to attend to their spiritual needs, but health professionals must be morally cautious and eschew proselytizing in any form. Four general domains for measuring various aspects of spirituality are distinguished: religiosity, religious coping and support, spiritual well-being, and spiritual need. A framework for understanding the interactions between these domains is presented. Available instruments are reviewed and critiqued. An agenda for research in the spiritual aspects of illness and care at the end of life is proposed. Implications: Spiritual concerns are important to many patients, particularly at the end of life. Much work remains to be done in understanding the spiritual aspects of patient care and how to address spirituality in research and practice. Key Words: Religion, Spirituality, Quality of life, Questionnaires, Health surveys

Tips are provided for doctors who may want to discuss their patients' religious and spiritual issues at the end of life. Even though doctors may not share their patients' religious views, their concern will show the patients that they care about them., As patients near the end of life, their spiritual and religious concerns may be awakened or intensified. Many physicians, however, feel unskilled and uncomfortable discussing these concerns. This article suggests how physicians might respond when patients or families raise such concerns. First, some patients may explicitly base decisions about life-sustaining interventions on their spiritual or religious beliefs. Physicians need to explore those beliefs to help patients think through their preferences regarding specific interventions. Second, other patients may not bring up spiritual or religious concerns but are troubled by them. Physicians should identify such concerns and listen to them empathetically, without trying to alleviate the patient's spiritual suffering or offering premature reassurance. Third, some patients or families may have religious reasons for insisting on life-sustaining interventions that physicians advise against. The physician should listen and try to understand the patient's viewpoint . Listening respectfully does not require the physician to agree with the patient or misrepresent his or her own views. Patients and families who feel that the physician understands them and cares about them may be more willing to consider the physician's views on prognosis and treatment. By responding to patients' spiritual and religious concerns and needs, physicians may help them find comfort and closure near the end of life.

A study compared the knowledge, confidence, and attitudes regarding medical ethics of 55 house officers and 57 full-time faculty members of the Georgetown University (District of Columbia) Department of Medicine. Results indicated low knowledge levels in both groups, higher faculty confidence, and somewhat more faculty sentiment for mandatory ethics training during residency. Implications for ethics instruction are discussed. (Author/MSE)

New Natural Law Theory and the Catholic medico-moral tradition often lead to similar conclusions in hard cases regarding end-of-life care. Considering the provision of artificial nutrition and hydration to patients suffering from post-coma unresponsive wakefulness, however, brings to light subtle ways in which NNL differs from the centuries-old natural law tradition. In this essay, I formalize the methodology embedded within the casuistry of the medico-moral tradition and show how it differs from NNL with respect to the role played by double-effect reasoning and the perspective for analyzing cases regarding care for those who cannot speak for themselves. Importantly, the ordinary/extraordinary means distinction has never historically been understood as an application of double effect and logically cannot be so understood. Given the outsized role that double effect plays in NNL, the theory leads to conclusions that deviate from the Catholic medico-moral tradition and creates additional burdens and duties for the sick. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]