期刊
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 21-28出版社
ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1574465
关键词
Critical Care/Ethics; Ethical Analysis; Medical Ethics Medical; Passive Euthanasia; Withholding treatment/Ethics
资金
- Wellcome trust [WT106587/Z/14/Z, WT 104848/Z/14/Z, WT203132/Z/16/Z.]
- Victorian Government's Operational Infrastructure Support Program
If a doctor is trying to decide whether or not to provide a medical treatment, does it matter ethically whether that treatment has already been started? Health professionals sometimes find it harder to stop a treatment (withdraw) than to refrain from starting the treatment (withhold). But does that feeling correspond to an ethical difference? In this article, we defend equivalencethe view that withholding and withdrawal of treatment are ethically equivalent when all other factors are equal. We argue that preference for withholding over withdrawal could represent a form of cognitive biaswithdrawal aversion. Nevertheless, we consider whether there could be circumstances in which there is a moral difference. We identify four examples of conditional nonequivalence. Finally, we reflect on the moral significance of diverging intuitions and the implications for policy. We propose a set of practical strategies for helping to reduce bias in end-of-life decision making, including the equivalence test.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据