‘Alive by default’: An exploration of Velleman’s unfair burdens argument against state sanctioned euthanasia

In this article we critically evaluate an argument against state-sanctioned euthanasia made by David Velleman in his 1992 paper ‘Against the right to die’. In that article, Velleman argues that legalizing euthanasia is morally problematic as it will deprive eligible patients of the opportunity of st...

Description complète

Enregistré dans:  
Détails bibliographiques
Auteurs: Symons, Xavier (Auteur) ; Chua, Reginald (Auteur)
Type de support: Électronique Article
Langue:Anglais
Vérifier la disponibilité: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
En cours de chargement...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Publié: Wiley-Blackwell [2020]
Dans: Bioethics
Année: 2020, Volume: 34, Numéro: 3, Pages: 288-294
RelBib Classification:NCH Éthique médicale
VA Philosophie
Sujets non-standardisés:B Kantianism
B Utilitarianism
B Vulnerability
B rational suicide
B Euthanasia
Accès en ligne: Volltext (Verlag)
Volltext (doi)

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 1727464478
003 DE-627
005 20211005021620.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 200819s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1111/bioe.12677  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1727464478 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1727464478 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Symons, Xavier  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a ‘Alive by default’  |b An exploration of Velleman’s unfair burdens argument against state sanctioned euthanasia 
264 1 |c [2020] 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a In this article we critically evaluate an argument against state-sanctioned euthanasia made by David Velleman in his 1992 paper ‘Against the right to die’. In that article, Velleman argues that legalizing euthanasia is morally problematic as it will deprive eligible patients of the opportunity of staying ‘alive by default’. That is to say, those patients who are rendered eligible for euthanasia as a result of legislative reform will face the burden of having to justify their continued existence to their epistemic peers if they are to be perceived as ‘reasonable’. We discuss potential criticisms that could be made of the argument, and consider how a defender of the view might respond. Velleman’s argument is particularly interesting as it is a consequentialist argument against state-sanctioned euthanasia, challenging the many consequentialist arguments that have been made in favour of legalizing the procedure. We conclude by suggesting that further research on the question of unfair burdens is important to adequately evaluating the potential harms of legalizing euthanasia for patients at the end of life. 
601 |a Argumentation 
650 4 |a Kantianism 
650 4 |a Euthanasia 
650 4 |a rational suicide 
650 4 |a Utilitarianism 
650 4 |a Vulnerability 
652 |a NCH:VA 
700 1 |a Chua, Reginald  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Bioethics  |d Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1987  |g 34(2020), 3, Seite 288-294  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)271596708  |w (DE-600)1480658-7  |w (DE-576)078707986  |x 1467-8519  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:34  |g year:2020  |g number:3  |g pages:288-294 
856 4 0 |u https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bioe.12677  |x Verlag 
856 |u https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12677  |x doi  |3 Volltext 
936 u w |d 34  |j 2020  |e 3  |h 288-294 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 3741213004 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1727464478 
LOK |0 005 20211005021620 
LOK |0 008 200819||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixzo 
LOK |0 936ln  |0 1550736558  |a NCH 
LOK |0 936ln  |0 1442053844  |a VA 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 
REL |a 1 
SUB |a REL