• Martin Klein.
• Dr.MartinKlein@t-online.de
• Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. 2002 Jun 14; 114 (10-11): 415-21.

AbstractDirect active euthanasia is prohibited in most countries while passive and indirect is not. However, many arguments against the legalization of voluntary active euthanasia are flawed, because a critical ethical difference between passive and active euthanasia is difficult to establish especially when the passivity of the actor causes death. The crucial point is not activity or passivity but respect for the autonomy of individual human beings. In particular there appears to be little ethical difference between active and indirect euthanasia. Indirect euthanasia has often been justified by the doctrine of double effect (Thomas Aquinas), which I argue contains a logical fallacy. This rule does not allow foreseen and unwanted adverse effects of an action to occur when they are avoidable. In terminal sedation, an example for indirect euthanasia, hypoxemia and dehydration can easily be prevented by respirator therapy and fluid administration. Therefore the rule of double effect is not applicable. Indirect and direct active euthanasia cannot be ethically distinguished by resorting to the doctrine of double effect.

22 keywords...

hide…