Critique of autonomy-based arguments against legalising assisted dying

Article

SOBIRK PETERSEN, Thomas | DIGE, Morten

The aim of this article is to present and critically investigate a type of argument against legalising assisted dying on request (ADR) for patients who are terminally ill and experiencing suffering. This type of argument has several variants. These-which we call 'autonomy-based arguments' against legalising ADR-invoke different specifications of the premise that we ought not to respect requests for assistance in dying made by terminally ill and suffering patients because the basic conditions of autonomy cannot be met in scenarios where such requests are made. Specifically, it is argued either (1) that as a result of pain, anxiety or desperation, terminally ill patients are not competent decision makers or (2) that legalisation of ADR would lead to social pressure or in other ways change the patient's context of choice in ways that make such requests nonautonomous. We argue that these types of arguments are problematic in light both of empirical studies and the fact that we usually judge that it is morally right to respect the wishes and decisions of dying people even if they suffer.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13125

Voir la revue «Bioethics»

Autres numéros de la revue «Bioethics»

• Description
• Sujet/Public
• Outil
• Outil d'anticipation
• Gestion