Search

The impact of perceived gender role violations on the willingness of evaluators to label a deadly act to "end suffering" as euthanasia was explored in two studies. It was predicted that "killing" (even mercy killing) would be perceived as more role contradictory for a female actor than for a male actor. Therefore, it was expected that the deadly actions of a female actor would be judged as less justified (i.e., less likely to be labeled as euthanasia) than the same action committed by a male actor. A total of 486 undergraduates participated in one of two studies. It was found that although perceptions of justification for a deadly act were clearly influenced by whether or not the method of action taken was direct and proactive (commission) vs. indirect and passive (omission), the gender of the actor did not impact differently on the judgments of the participants. Possible explanations and future research directions are discussed.

Since the early 1970s the issue of euthanasia has been intensely debated in The Netherlands. Through these debates knowledge about medical practices involving the end of life was no longer confined to medical or legal quarters, but became public to a large extent. Following public opinion changes, the legal reaction to euthanasia changed. By prosecuting test cases the public prosecutors allowed the Dutch Supreme Court to formulate specific conditions in which euthanasia would go unpunished. The political debate about changing the criminal law, which still holds that euthanasia is a serious crime, developed at a much slower pace. Several extensive empirical studies were undertaken to gain valid knowledge about the medical practices. This article is concerned with a presentation of the various debates and the changes that took place in the fields of criminal law, politics, and medicine. The main conclusion is the hypothesis that a more open climate for medical practices concerning the end of life allows society to better control these practices.

Often the type of information collected in surveys of physicians' opinions about active euthanasia has not revealed their experiences and the rationale(s) they use in arriving at their opinions. This paper presents a qualitative analysis of comments made in a large survey of Alberta physicians' opinions about active euthanasia to identify issues physicians commented upon, and to explore the rationale(s) behind their opinions. This information adds an important qualitative perspective to the current debate about euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Discussions of euthanasia often appeal to the distinction between killing people and letting them die. Favor asks whether this distinction is morally important--in particular, whether killing is worse than merely letting someone die, even when the motivations and consequences are the same. She explores our moral intuitions via a discussion of various subtly different hypothetical examples.

Practicing doctors see things differently from bioethicists, argues David L Schiedermayer, in his response to Cameron's essay. Patient autonomy and informed consent figure more importantly in ethical debate than they do in actual practice. Clinicians work with a practical ethic of beneficence that is directly related to diagnosis and treatment.

In this issue we are pleased to publish the address given recently by Mrs Rita Marker of the Anti-euthanasia Task Force (USA) at a press conference in the House of Commons in London. It offers a most informative update on the development of euthanasia discussion in the United States. We must be grateful that the situation elsewhere is different. In Germany, as a recent correspondent told the Editor, the memory of euthanasia under the Nazis is still too fresh for there to be such a development. Even in Holland there are moves to develop a hospice programme, to offer a radically alternative approach to terminal care. Yet in Britain the idea of the living will is beginning to catch on, and we do well to take note of how it is being used in the United States as a gateway to euthanasia.

The links between ethics, medicine and the law cannot readily produce appropriate criteria for human quality questions, largely because ethics are misconstrued where they are not excluded; but also because the science at issue is full of unknowns. The paper surveys issues in eugenics, abortion and euthanasia.