These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Euthanasia: a contemporary moral quandary.
    Author: Reichel W, Dyck AJ.
    Journal: Lancet; 1989 Dec 02; 2(8675):1321-3. PubMed ID: 2574265.
    Abstract:
    Responding to an increased interest in establishing active, voluntary euthanasia as a viable medical and social policy, Reichel and Dyck consider the major arguments for and against the practice. Proponents of euthanasia support a patient's right of self determination and a compassion-motivated active ending of suffering. Opponents are concerned with the problems of determining intention and motivation, the danger of involuntary euthanasia of the aged, the handicapped, and the incompetent, and the impact on the physician patient relationship. Reichel and Dyck argue that, instead of euthanasia, physicians can offer terminally ill patients the "moral choice to die well" by alleviating pain, by respecting requests to forgo burdensome, invasive treatments, by providing comfort and support, and by communicating with patients and their families.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]