Linked Life Data

9573717

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/9573717

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
4
pubmed:dateCreated
1998-6-11
pubmed:abstractText
Part I of this paper considers three competing ethical approaches to the valuation of human life: "Vitalism', 'Inviolability', and 'Worth'. Part II argues that, largely as a result of the case of Airedale NHS Trust v Bland, English law relating to 'euthanasia' (the intentional shortening of a patient's life, by act or omission, as part of his/her medical care) is in a morally and intellectually inconsistent state, incorporating Inviolability by prohibiting doctors from intentionally killing patients by an act but adopting Worth by permitting them intentionally to kill certain patients by omission. Part III maintains that the recent Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics missed an opportunity to recommend the resolution of this inconsistency.
pubmed:keyword
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
E
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:issn
0723-1393
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
16
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
805-11
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1997
pubmed:articleTitle
Euthanasia in England: courts, committees and consistency.
pubmed:affiliation
Queen's College, Cambridge, England.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study