2012Jagiellonian University Repository (Jagiellonian University)Open access

Ethical problems of palliative care in the period of its evolutionary transformation

J Iwaszczyszyn, Anna Kliś-Kalinowska, Janusz Czekaj, Izabela Chmiel

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

Our long-time experience in palliative care allowed us to notice changes in ethics of palliative medicine. In the handbook of palliative medicine, its authors R.G.Twycross and D.Frampton in 1995 did formulate the following ethical postulate: respect for life, acceptance of death of a patient as an unavoidable event, respect for a patient as a person, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice. In addition, they stressed prohibition of euthanasia as a rule. Nine years later, however, in the Oxford handbook of palliative care, its authors: M.S.Watson, C.T.Lukas, M.A.Hoy and J.N.Back described their ethical basis, which were slightly different but quite similar to those of T.L.Beauchamp and J.F.Childers: autonomy of a patient, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice and the trust. Their set of principles may induce controversy because of unlimited patient's autonomy and absence of physician's autonomy. Further, it may permit euthanasia, which is excluded by palliative medicine.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Our long-time experience in palliative care allowed us to notice changes in ethics of palliative medicine. In the handbook of palliative medicine, its authors R.G.Twycross and D.Frampton in 1995 did formulate the following ethical postulate: respect for life, acceptance of death of a patient as an unavoidable event, respect for a patient as a person, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice. In addition, they stressed prohibition of euthanasia as a rule. Nine years later, however, in the Oxford handbook of palliative care, its authors: M.S.Watson, C.T.Lukas, M.A.Hoy and J.N.Back described their ethical basis, which were slightly different but quite similar to those of T.L.Beauchamp and J.F.Childers: autonomy of a patient, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice and the trust. Their set of principles may induce controversy because of unlimited patient's autonomy and absence of physician's autonomy. Further, it may permit euthanasia, which is excluded by palliative medicine.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Our long-time experience in palliative care allowed us to notice changes in ethics of palliative medicine. In the handbook of palliative medicine, its authors R.G.Twycross and D.Frampton in 1995 did formulate the following ethical postulate: respect for life, acceptance of death of a patient as an unavoidable event, respect for a patient as a person, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice. In addition, they stressed prohibition of euthanasia as a rule. Nine years later, however, in the Oxford handbook of palliative care, its authors: M.S.Watson, C.T.Lukas, M.A.Hoy and J.N.Back described their ethical basis, which were slightly different but quite similar to those of T.L.Beauchamp and J.F.Childers: autonomy of a patient, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice and the trust. Their set of principles may induce controversy because of unlimited patient's autonomy and absence of physician's autonomy. Further, it may permit euthanasia, which is excluded by palliative medicine.

Key concepts: Beneficence, Autonomy, Palliative care, Economic Justice, Bioethics, Notice, Medical ethics, Psychology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Ethical problems of palliative care in the period of its evolutionary transformation — Research Paper | ScholarLens