000			03336cam a2200325 a 4500
001			000047684100
003			AuCNLKIN
005			20171108140939.0
008			110421s2012 enk b 001 0 eng|d
020			_a9781849461788 (pbk.)
020			_a1849461783 (pbk.)
035			_a(OCoLC)712777345
040			_aStDuBDS
042			_aukblcatcopy
082	0	4	_a344.04197 _222
084			_a346.8626 _2moys
100	1		_aJackson, Emily, _d1966-
245	1	0	_aDebating euthanasia / _cEmily Jackson and John Keown.
260			_aOxford : _bHart, _c2012.
300			_ax, 190 p. ; _c22 cm.
490	0		_aDebating law.
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references and index.
505	0		_aMachine generated contents note: In Favour of the Legalisation of Assisted Dying / Emily Jackson -- I.Introduction -- II.Why We Should Try -- III.The Status Quo is Indefensible -- A.Double Effect -- B.Terminal Sedation -- C.̀Do Not Attempt Resuscitation' Orders -- D.Treatment Withdrawal -- E.Exporting the ̀Problem' of Assisted Suicide -- F.The Euthanasia/Assisted Suicide Ùnderground' and the Benefits of Regulation -- IV.Why Might Anyone Think We Shouldn't Try? -- A.The Sanctity and Value of Life -- B.Effect on Doctor-Patient Relationship -- C.Regulatory Difficulties -- V.What Might an Assisted Dying Law Look Like? -- A.Other Countries' Experience -- B.Process -- C.Method: Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia, or Both? -- D.Substance -- VI.What are the Consequences of not Trying? -- Against Decriminalising Euthanasia; For Improving Care / John Keown -- I.Introduction -- II.Definitions -- III.Ten Arguments For Decriminalisation -- A.Autonomy -- B.Compassion -- C.Legal Hypocrisy --
505	0		_aContents note continued: D.A Right to Suicide -- E.Public Opinion -- F.Legal Failure -- G.The Netherlands -- H.Oregon -- I.Religion -- J.Economics -- IV.Professor Jackson's Arguments -- A.Jackson 1 -- B.Jackson 2 -- V.The Joffe Bill -- A.The Bill -- B.Key Committee Recommendations Not Adopted -- C.Extension and Abuse -- VI.Conclusions.
520			_aSummary: "Emily Jackson argues that we owe it to everyone in society to do all that we can to ensure that they experience a 'good death'. For a small minority of patients who experience intolerable and unrelievable suffering, this may mean helping them to have an assisted death. In a liberal society, where people's moral views differ, we should not force individuals to experience deaths they find intolerable. This is not an argument in favour of dying. On the contrary, Jackson argues that legalisation could extend and enhance the lives of people whose present fear of the dying process causes them overwhelming distress. John Keown argues that voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are gravely unethical and he defends their continued prohibition by law. He analyses the main arguments for relaxation of the law--including those which invoke the experience of jurisdictions which permit these practices--and finds them wanting. Relaxing the law would, he concludes, be both wrong in principle and dangerous in practice, not least for the dying, the disabled and the disadvantaged"--Provided by publisher.
650		0	_aEuthanasia _xLaw and legislation.
650		0	_aEuthanasia _xMoral and ethical aspects.
700	1		_aKeown, John.
942			_2ddc _cB
999			_c592755 _d592755