Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.550992
Title: The moral step back
Author: Edwards, Jennifer
Awarding Body: Aberystwyth University
Current Institution: Aberystwyth University
Date of Award: 2012
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
This work aims to make the case for reform to the law on euthanasia being necessary. There are certain constructs within the criminal law, passive euthanasia and the doctrine of double effect, that allow the courts to re-define physicians’ actus reus (in the case of passive euthanasia) or mens rea (in the case of double effect), and make it possible for them to do acts that would otherwise be seen as murder without the threat of legal sanctions. While it is not disputed that the majority of physicians who perform passive euthanasia or rely on the doctrine of double effect do so in good faith and therefore deserve legal protection, it will be argued these constructs they rely are logically not fit for purpose and that the courts allow, through their use, the very acts they purport to condemn. It is concluded that active euthanasia and intentional killing are, through ‘passive’ euthanasia and the doctrine of double effect, both practiced and unregulated, and it is this lack of regulation that this work cites as the most important reason why the law at present needs to be reformed. With the need for reform as its basis, the discussion moves on to explore a number of possible avenues through which reform could be effected, and settles upon the promulgation of legislation as the most prudent. In response to this finding, a draft Bill was written and is evaluated in the last chapter of this work.
Supervisor: Williams, Glenys ; Williams, John Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.550992  DOI: Not available
Share: