Citation

Patterson R, George K. J. Law Med. 2005; 12(4): 494-510.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2005, Thompson - LBC Information Services)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Within the context of the debate over the recent suspended sentence given to John Stuart Godfrey by Underwood J in the Supreme Court of Tasmania for assisting his elderly mother with her suicide, this article examines some of the more popular arguments for and against the moral acceptability of euthanasia and assisted suicide. This article considers the arguments put forward on the "difference principle" by Rachels and Nesbitt before critically examining the liberal approach to the euthanasia issue as proposed by Kuhse. It is argued that whilst Kuhse is correct to reject the difference principle, she does so for the wrong reasons. The penultimate section of the article provides an overview of the traditional moral view against killing. The final part assesses whether the arguments put forward by proponents of the liberal approach are capable of overcoming this view.

Language: en

Keywords

Humans; Aged; Female; Australia; Motivation; human; female; aged; morality; Public Policy; policy; assisted suicide; empathy; Empathy; medical ethics; ethics; Politics; Death and Euthanasia; Legal Approach; Personal Autonomy; motivation; article; politics; legal aspect; Suicide, Assisted; active euthanasia; Analytical Approach; Euthanasia, Active; personal autonomy; Double Effect; Morals; Tasmania