首页> 外文期刊>Journal of medical ethics >Killing or letting die? Proposal of a (somewhat) new answer to a perennial question.
【24h】

Killing or letting die? Proposal of a (somewhat) new answer to a perennial question.

机译:杀还是要死?关于一个长期性问题的(某种)新答案的建议。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

There is as yet no widely agreed-upon solution to the standard textbook problem whether actively shutting off a life-sustaining medical device, e.g. a respirator, and thus bringing about a patient's death amounts to active killing or just to an omission of further treatment. Apart from a range of astutely contrived case examples and respective particular solutions proposed in the literature, there seems to be no consensus on the normative principles such solutions should be grounded in, not even on the need for such principles beyond sheer intuition. The present paper attempts to develop a normative approach based on fundamental principles of law. From this perspective, what is decisive for the question of 'killing or letting die' in such cases is not that death ensues from a behaviour that is active and relevantly causative, but rather, whether or not the agent in performing the deadly act transgresses the boundaries of the domain of his or her sole normative authority, and thereby intervenes in the protected sphere of another. Unless he or she does so, their behaviour cannot be classified as active commission regardless of the amount of causal activity it may display and regardless of its potentially harmful consequences. This conception is spelled out in detail and tested in a range of case examples, as are several of its corollaries that deviate from standard type solutions.
机译:对于是否主动关闭维持生命的医疗设备,例如标准的教科书,目前尚无关于标准教科书问题的广泛认可的解决方案。呼吸器,从而导致患者死亡,等于主动杀害或只是省略进一步治疗。除了文献中提出的一系列精心设计的案例和各自的特定解决方案外,似乎还没有就应以此类解决方案为基础的规范性原则达成共识,甚至没有纯粹出于直觉而对此类原则的需求。本文试图发展基​​于法律基本原则的规范方法。从这个角度来看,在这种情况下,“杀戮或致死”问题的决定性因素不是死于活动和相关因果行为,而是执行致命行为的行为主体是否超越了行为。他或她唯一的规范权威的领域的边界,从而干预了另一个受保护领域。除非他或她这样做,否则无论其行为可能显示为何种因果活动,也不管其潜在有害后果如何,都不能将其行为归为主动佣金。对该概念进行了详细说明,并在一系列案例中进行了测试,以及与标准类型解决方案不同的一些推论。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号