Premium
Vitalism Revitalized: Vulnerable Populations, Prejudice, and Physician‐Assisted Death
Author(s) -
MAYO DAVID J.,
GUNDERSON MARTIN
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
hastings center report
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.515
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 1552-146X
pISSN - 0093-0334
DOI - 10.2307/3528084
Subject(s) - prejudice (legal term) , argument (complex analysis) , worry , nothing , coercion (linguistics) , vitalism , psychology , sociology , social psychology , law , criminology , political science , medicine , psychiatry , epistemology , philosophy , anxiety , alternative medicine , linguistics , pathology
One of the most potent arguments against physician‐assisted death hinges on the worry that people with disabilities will be subtly coerced to accept death prematurely. The argument is flawed. There is nothing new in PAD: the risk of coercion is already present in current policies about end of life care. And to hold that any such risk is too much is tacitly to endorse vitalism and to deny that people with disabilities are capable of choosing authentically.