English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Significant changes are occurring in Canada's health care system regarding physician-hastened death (PHD). In the Netherlands, where the Groningen Protocol is in place, euthanasia in now legal for infants and children. The present article considers whether PHD should be applied to young children in Canada and how these paediatric cases differ from adult cases. The discussion analyzes and critiques the underlying assumptions necessary to believe that PHD is good. The role of worldviews in the deliberation of any moral question and the importance of recognizing personal bias are highlighted. The authors present common issues regarding PHD, including suffering, parental autonomy and future quality of life, and examine the basic assumptions on which these arguments are made. Finally, they conclude that the assumptions required are incorrect and that PHD should not be allowed in the case of children. Instead, policies should continue to strive for the protection and promotion of health in all children.

Physician-hastened death in young children: Getting to underlying assumptions