×

Uh-oh, it looks like your Internet Explorer is out of date.

For a better shopping experience, please upgrade now.

Arguing Euthanasia: The Controversy Over Mercy Killing, Assisted Suicide, And The
     

Arguing Euthanasia: The Controversy Over Mercy Killing, Assisted Suicide, And The "Right To Die"

5.0 1
by Jonathan Moreno, Jonathan D. Moreno (Introduction)
 
The proliferation of life-prolonging technology in recent years has made the controversy over the "right to die" and physician-assisted suicide one of the most explosive medical and ethical issues of our day. Dr. Jack Kevorkian's "suicide machine" has commanded front-page coverage for several years, while in 1994 Oregon passed a measure

Overview

The proliferation of life-prolonging technology in recent years has made the controversy over the "right to die" and physician-assisted suicide one of the most explosive medical and ethical issues of our day. Dr. Jack Kevorkian's "suicide machine" has commanded front-page coverage for several years, while in 1994 Oregon passed a measure allowing the terminally ill to obtain lethal prescriptions for suicide, and other states have placed similar proposals on their ballots.

Arguing Euthanasia brings together for the first time an impressive array of viewpoints from both sides of this emotionally charged question as well as voices from the gravely ill and their loved ones. Beginning with a selection of pieces from the New England Journal of Medicine, where the debate was ignited in 1988, Arguing Euthanasia features essays by such outspoken advocates of active euthanasia as Timothy Quill and Sidney Hook, and important social critics and commentators such as Nat Hentoff, Leon R. Kass, and Ronald Dworkin.

As they probe the legal and ethical issues at the heart of physician-assisted suicide, these essays offer invaluable insights not only for those caring for the terminally ill but for anyone concerned with the deeper philosophical conflict between enduring life-oriented values and personal dignity that lies at the heart of this controversy.

Editorial Reviews

Publishers Weekly - Publisher's Weekly
The right of terminally ill patients to put an end to their suffering has been treated as homicide in every country except the Netherlands-at least until November 8, 1994. On that date, Oregon voters became the first in our nation to approve assisted suicide, although the measure did not survive a court challenge. This collection of 19 provocative essays, by medical professionals and social commentators, examines the question. Hippocrates could not have imagined 2000 years ago the consequences of today's aggressive end-of-life hospital care. Most of us will die in institutions, rather than at home, surrounded by staff, rather than a personal physician. And all of us must ask: Given the resources for medical intervention, will I be allowed to die with dignity? This collection documents the popular movement that culminated in Oregon's referendum, beginning in 1988 with the anonymous Journal of the American Medical Association article, ``It's Over, Debbie.'' It also includes Dr. Timothy E. Quill's 1991 landmark piece, ``Death and Dignity,'' as well as personal accounts of assisted suicide by Richard Selzer and Betty Rollin. As they probe the legal and ethical issues at the heart of the postmodern dilemma (``What is a dignified death?''), these arguments offer valuable insights for humane treatment. They promise to become even more timely as life-prolonging technology advances. (Oct.)

Product Details

ISBN-13:
9780684807607
Publisher:
Touchstone
Publication date:
10/01/1995
Edition description:
Original
Pages:
256
Product dimensions:
0.58(w) x 5.50(h) x 8.50(d)

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Post to your social network

     

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews

Arguing Euthanasia: The Controversy Over Mercy Killing, Assisted Suicide, And The "Right To Die" 5 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 1 reviews.
Guest More than 1 year ago
The book gives a wonderful, unbiased review of one of the most controversial topics of this era. With excellent points on both sides, it causes the reader to question what they would actually do in a situation that considered euthanasia an option.