帳號:guest(52.54.111.228)          離開系統
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  

詳目顯示

以作者查詢圖書館館藏以作者查詢臺灣博碩士以作者查詢全國書目勘誤回報
作者:楊雅君
作者(外文):Ya-chun Yang
論文名稱:醫助自殺合法化的倫理反思
論文名稱(外文):Ethical reflection of the legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide
指導教授:李瑞全
指導教授(外文):Shui-chuen Lee
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立中央大學
系所名稱:哲學研究所在職專班
學號:971304006
畢業學年度:100
語文別:中文
論文頁數:103
中文關鍵詞:滑坡效應自律原則人性尊嚴醫助自殺模式醫助自殺
外文關鍵詞:slippery-slopethe principle of autonomyhuman dignitymodel of Physician-Assisted SuicidePhysician-Assisted Suicide
相關次數:
  • 推薦推薦:0
  • 點閱點閱:116
  • 評分評分:*****
  • 下載下載:31
  • 收藏收藏:0
醫生秉持濟世救人的職責,尊重病人的自主性,末期病人面對無效醫療痛苦時,是否有權利請求醫助自殺的倫理性仍有爭議。本論文主要探討醫助自殺的合理性,藉由奎爾提出符合醫助自殺模式的條件為主軸,對於罹患無效醫療的末期病人,仍具有理智與行為能力者,可主動要求醫生開立致死藥物,尋求尊嚴死亡,是謂「醫助自殺」,進而衍生醫助自殺合法化後的問題提出倫理反思。美國華盛頓州採取公投通過尊嚴死法案,醫助自殺形成公共政策後所遭遇的問題,從不同學者觀點分析贊成與反對醫助自殺的立場。
第二章從奎爾醫生的個案研究,罹患急性白血病的黛安請求醫助自殺,必須符合醫助自殺模式的七項條件。學者貝參提出九項符合醫助自殺的要件,再與奎爾的醫助自殺模式作相同處與相異處作一比較。整合柯沃肯協助病人自殺模式與奎爾所提出醫助自殺的模式,分析其優缺點。
第三章主要從自律原則的觀點,探討醫助自殺的道德性,論證醫助自殺可以是合乎理性的規範。從康德的人性尊嚴與自律原則來探討醫助自殺的爭議性,康德認為自殺是要被譴責的,假設醫助自殺不同於自殺,自律原則與生命價值有何衝突議題。以生命價值為主軸,反對醫助自殺的學者與理論,同樣強調人性尊嚴。所以,醫助自殺必須透過深思熟慮的規範之後,才能在道德上成為可接受的醫助自殺。
第四章在雙重效應原則,認為醫助自殺造成病人縮短生命是好的效果,大於病人的痛苦,所以致命藥物產生的副作用只是不好的結果,病人因而可以解脫。贊成醫助自殺的學者認為,讓病人擁有死亡的權利,不再繼續忍受疾病態來的痛苦,醫助自殺可以是理性的選擇。
第五章擬就醫助自殺合法後會遭遇到議題,濫用產生的滑坡效應、末期病人宣稱請求醫助自殺的權利、社會差異與醫生的角色轉換與醫病關係的轉變四方面來探討醫助自殺合法化後,將會面對現實的問題,而這些問題會如何影響我們對醫助自殺的觀感,想想如何制定適合我國國情的醫療制度。
Saving the world uphold the duties of physicians who respect autonomy of the patients. Terminally ill patients suffering have the right to die. PAS is still controversial. This paper mainly discusses the rationality of physician assisted suicide. By Quill’s patterns that meet the conditions of PAS for patients’ suffering invalid. They still have the ability to act and take the initiative to ask the doctor to open up lethal drugs. The dignity of death is that "physician assisted suicide", and then derived legalized medically PAS reflection on the issues raised. In the U.S, the state of Washington, Death with Dignity encountered public policy problems after the formation of PAS. From the viewpoints of different scholars are in favor of and against the position of PAS. From Dr. Quill, suffering from acute leukemia, Diane’s PAS, and her case must meet the seven conditions. Beauchamp’s nine models in PAS are in line with the elements of Dian model. To help patients commit suicide, Kevorkian proposed model and Quill’s model. I’ll analyze its strengths and weaknesses.
From the principle of self-discipline views of the morality of PAS can be demonstrated rational norms. From Kant''s principles of human dignity and self-discipline explore the controversial medical assistant suicide. Kant thinks suicide is to be condemned if medically assisted suicide is different from suicide. The value of life as the main, opposed to scholars and medically PAS. The theory is emphasized on human dignity. Therefore, medically assisted suicide must be considered through the specification before it can be morally acceptable medical assistance to commit suicide. In the principle of double effects that cause the patient medically assisted suicide It is a better life shortening effect than the patient''s pain. So side effects of drugs are a bad result. In favor of medically assisted suicide scholars believe that the patients have the right to die, not continuing to endure the pain of the disease. PAS can be a rational choice. To be legitimate medical PAS after the suicide encounter issues: abuse resulting landslide effect, terminally ill patients commit suicide claimed the right to die, differences of the doctor''s role changing, the doctor-patient relationship. Legalized PAS will face the reality of the problems and how these issues affect our perception of medically assisted suicide. Think about how to formulate suitable for Taiwanese health care system.
第一章 導論................................................................................................................ 1
第一節 研究動機.................................................................................................... 1
第二節 研究目的.................................................................................................... 2
第三節 我國律法與醫助自殺的關聯.................................................................... 5
第二章 醫助自殺的倫理分析.................................................................................... 9
第一節 奎爾醫生之醫助自殺的模式.................................................................... 9
第二節 醫助自殺之條件分析.............................................................................. 19
第三章 從自律原則探討醫助自殺的爭議性.......................................................... 29
第一節 康德人性尊嚴與自律原則...................................................................... 29
第二節 從生命價值反對醫助自殺的論據.......................................................... 35
第三節 醫助自殺模式與合法條例...................................................................... 46
第四章 證成醫助自殺合法化的理據...................................................................... 50
第一節 醫助自殺與雙重效應原則...................................................................... 51
第二節 支持醫助自殺的論據.............................................................................. 54
第三節 雙重效應原則間接支持醫助自殺.......................................................... 61
第五章 醫助自殺合法後的議題.............................................................................. 64
第一節 濫用產生的滑坡效應.............................................................................. 65
第二節 末期病人宣稱享有醫助自殺的權利...................................................... 70
第三節 社會差異與醫生的角色.......................................................................... 73
第四節 醫病關係的轉變...................................................................................... 77
第五節 結論.......................................................................................................... 79
參考文獻...................................................................................................................... 81
附錄一 美國奧勒岡州«尊嚴死亡法» ..................................................................... 87
附錄二 德國贊成醫助自殺...................................................................................... 92
參考文獻
一、中文文獻
(一)專書
甘添貴著,1999,《刑法案例解評》,台北:瑞興出版。
史都達著,劉仁薈譯,1996,《情深到來生:安寧照顧》,台北:正中書局。
史懷哲著,鄭泰安譯,《文明的哲學》,台北:志文出版社。
布萊爾著,陳南州譯,2000,《聖經手冊》,台北市:人光出版社,初版。
尼古拉斯‧布寧著,余紀元譯,2001,《西方哲學英漢對照辭典》,中國北京市:
人民出版社,初版。
李瑞全編,1998,《倫理與生死:亞洲應用倫理學論集》,中壢:國立中央大學。
李瑞全‧朱建民‧葉保強,2005,《應用倫理學與現代社會》,台北:
國立空中大學,初版。
林鈺雄,2002,《刑事法理論與實踐》,台北:學林文化事業有限公司。
紀欣,2003,《生死一線間-安樂死與死刑制度的探討》,台北:商周出版社,初
版。
范瑞平譯,恩格爾哈特 ( H . T r i s t r a m E n g e l h a r d t )著,2006,《生命倫
理學基礎》,北京大學出版社,第二版。
許爾文.努蘭著,楊慕華譯,2009,《死亡的臉》,台北:時報文化,初版。
朗諾‧德沃金著,郭貞伶、陳雅汝譯,2002,《生命的自主權》台北:商周出版,
初版。
富朗克著,趙可式、沈錦惠譯,1995,《活出意義來》,台北市:光啟社,初版。
陳子平,1995,《刑法總論》,台北:元照出版。
康德撰,牟宗三譯註,1983,《康德的道德哲學》,台北:台灣學生,再版。
湯瑪斯.薩斯著,吳書榆譯,2001,《自殺的權利》,台北:商周出版,初版。
路易斯‧波伊曼編著,江麗美等譯,1995,《生與死-現代道德困境的挑戰》,台
北:桂冠圖書,出版。
路易斯‧波伊曼編著,魏德驥等譯,1997,《解構死亡-死亡、自殺、安樂死與
死刑的剖析》,香港:榆林書局,出版一刷。
路易斯‧波伊曼編著,陳瑞麟譯,1997,《今生今世-生命的神聖、品質和意義》,
台北:桂冠圖書股份有限公司,初版一刷。
張培倫譯,Christopher Want著,1998,《康德》,台北:立緒文化,初版。
鍾昌宏,1996,《「癌病末期」安寧照顧──簡要理論與實踐》,台北:財團法人
中華民國安寧照顧基金會。
(二)期刊
柳麗珍譯,(1987),臨終之醫療倫理,Callaham, Daniel: Setting Limits, New York
Simon and Schusters, pp.174-93, 頁82。
蔡甫昌,劉珈麟,朱怡康,(2006),醫助自殺與安樂死的倫理法律議題,台灣醫
學,第10卷第5期。
楊秀儀,(1999),誰來同意?誰作決定?從「告知後同意法則」談病人自主權的
理論與實際:美國經驗之考察,台灣法學會學報第20期。
楊秀儀,(2002),病人,家屬,社會:論基因年代病患自主權可能之發展,台大
法學論叢第31卷第5期。
(三) 論文
王志傑,2002,《病患自主權理論基礎之研究-兼論病患自主權對我國安寧緩和
醫療條例之啟示》,台北:國防管理學院法律研究所碩士論文。
王志嘉,2006,《死亡協助與刑事責任》,台北:東吳大學法律研究所碩士論文。
王耘婕,2005,《自願主動安樂死的出路---從死亡權的角度分析》,中壢:國
立中央大學哲學研究所碩士論文。
紀麗鳳,2008,《死亡權之研究:辛格的進路》,中壢:國立中央大學哲學研究所
碩士論文。
葉十榕,2007,《由安樂死的發展探討醫助死亡的未來》,台北:國立台北大學法
律專業研究所碩士論文。
張馨文,2006,《辛格論醫助自殺》,中壢:國立中央大學哲學研究所碩士論文。
鄭依青,2005,《論癌末病人醫助自殺之道德性》,中壢:國立中央大學哲學研
究所碩士論文。
謝文祥,1990,《由安寧照顧、安樂死與自然死探討臨終病人的醫療困境》,中
壢:國立中央大學哲學研究所碩士論文。
鄭雲鵬,2008,《由倫理與法律的角度探討安樂死的議題》,台北:國立台北大
學法律系碩士論文。
一、外文文獻
(一)外文專書
Beauchamp, Tom L. and LeRoy Walters(eds.), 1999, Contemporary Issues in
Bioethics, 5thed.,Belmont, CA: Wadworth-Thomson Learning.
Beauchamp, Tom L. and James F. Childress(eds.), 2001, Principles of Biomedical
Ethics,5thed.,New York: Oxford University Press.
Beauchamp, Tom L. and LeRoy Walters (eds.), 2003, Contemporary issues in
Bioethics, 6thed.,Belmont, CA: Wadsworth -Thomson Learning.
Brink, David O.,1984,Happiness, Justice, and Freedom—The Moral and Political
Philosophy of John Stuart Mill,California: University of California Press.
Follette, Hugh La. ,2000, Ethics in Practice—An Anthology. Blackwell Publishers Inc.
Foot, Philippa,1997,Euthanasia,Philosophiy and Public Affairs.
Frankena, William K.,1997, Mill on Utilitarianism—Routledge Philosophy Guidebook,
London & New York: Routledge.
Gert, Barnat, James, and Mogielnicki, R. Peter, 2000, Distinguishing Between Patients
Refusals and Requests, in Munson, Intervention and Reflection.
Gazzaniga, Michael S., 2002,The Ethical Brain,Washington, D.C.
Kant, Immanuel,1964, Groundwork of theMetaphysic of Morals , translated
andanalysed by H. J. Paton. Harper & Raw,Publishers.
Kant, Immanuel, 1996, Practical Philosophy, trans. Mary Gregor, Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity Press.
Kelly, Gerald,1958,Medical-Moral Problems. St. Louis:The Catholic Hospital
Association.
Lewis,C. S,1970,A Preface to Paradise Lost .London and New York : Oxford
UniversityPress.
Miles, Gomez S.,1988,Protocols for elective use of life—sustaining teeatment .New
York:Springer-Verlag .
Mill, J. S.,1974,On Liberty. Gertrude Himmelfarb, New York:Penguin Books.
Singer,Peter (ed. With Bernard Williams) ,1982, Utilitarianism and
Beyond,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Smart J. and Williams B. (eds.),1973,Utilitarianism: For and Against., Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Steinbock, Bonnie,1998,The Intentional Termination of Life, in Larry May et at eds.,
Applied Ethics.
Stoddard, Sandol,2000,Terminal, But Not Hopeless, in Munson, Intervention and
Reflection.
Szasz, Tomas Stephen, 1999, Fatal freedom:the ethics and politics of suicide, Greenwood Publishing Group,Inc.
Sullivan, Thomas, 1992, Active and Passive Euthanasia:An Important Distinction , in
Mapps and Zembaty, Social Ethics.
Twycross, Robert G,1995, Where There is Hope, There is Life: A View from the
Hospice. In Keown.
Twycross, Robert G,1998, Palliative Care.,In Chadwick.
Williams, Gay, J,2000,The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia, in Munson, Intervention and
Reflection.
(二)期刊與論文
Anqell, Marcia,1992,”Euthanasia”, in Mapps and Zembaty, Social Ethics, pp.132-35.
Battin, Margaret Pabst, 1995, “Ethical Issues in Physician-Assisted Suicide”, in
Michael M. Uhlmann, Last Rights?: Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Debated,
1998, Washington, D.C.: Ethics and Public Policy Center publish, 15th ed.., p.
130.
Brock, Dan W.,1999,”A Critigue of the Objective to physician-Assisted Suicide”, in
Ethics(April 1999), vol. 109. Issue 3. pp.1--20.
Brock, Dan W.,2000,”Voluntary Active Euthanasia”, in Munson ed., Intervention and
Reflection, pp.215--22.
Callaham, Daniel, 2000, “When self- Determination Runs Amock.” In Munson,
Intervention and Reflection, pp.225--30.
Cassel, Christine K.,1996,”Physician-Assisted Suicide”, in Thomasma and Kushner ed., Birth to Death, pp.218--30.
Christine Neylon O''Brien, Gerald A. Madek, &Gerald R. Ferrara, 2000, "Oregon''s
Guidelines For Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Legal And Ethical Analysis"
University of Pittsburgh Law Review, Vol. 61, pp.329.
Crisp, Roger, 1992, ‘Mill’s Deliberative Utilitarianism’ in Philosophy and Public
Affairs, Vol. 21, No. 1,pp67-103.
Dresser, Rebecca S. and John, Robertson A., 2000,”Quality of Life and Non- treatment
Decision for Incompetent patients:: A Critique of Orthodox Approach”, in
Munson, Intervention and Reflection., pp.233--7.
Dworkin, Ronald, 1981,“Rights as Trumps”, in Theories of Rights , 7th ., edited by
Jeremy Waldron, New York: Oxford University Press, pp.153-161.
Dworkin, Ronald, 1994, “Do We Have a Right to Die?", in Last Rights? : Assisted
Suicide and Euthanasia Debated, 15thed., edited by Michael M. Uhlmann, Washington, D.C.: Ethics and Public Policy Center publish, pp.75-93.
Gewirth, Alan.,1981, "Are There any Absolute Rights?", in Theories of Rights ,
7th .,edited by Jeremy Waldron, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 91-109.
James, Rachel ,1992, ”Active and Passive Euthanasia”, in Mapps& Zembaty, Social
Ethics, pp.110-15.
Kamm, F. M.,1997, ”A Right to Choose Death?”Boston Review 22(1997):21—35.
Kamm, F. M., 1999,”Physician-Assisted Suicide. The Doctrine of Double Effect, and
the Ground of Value”, in Ethics(April 1999), vol.109. Issue. 3, pp.1--20.
Kass, Leon R., 1992, “Why Doctor Must Not Kill", in Last Rights? : Assisted
Suicide and Euthanasia Debated, 15thed., edited by Michael M. Uhlmann,
Washington, D. C. : Ethics and Public Policy Center publish, pp.297-306.
Kass, Leon R., 1993, “Is There a Right to Die?", in Contemporary Issues in
Bioethics,6thed., edited by Tom L. Beauchamp and LeRoy Walters, Belmont,
CA:Wadworth- Thomson Learning, pp.191-200.
Meisel, Allen, 1991”Leagal Myths about Terminating Life Support,” Archives of Internal
Medicine,151,no.8,pp.1497—1502.
Quill, Timothy E., 1993, “Death and Dignity: B. Potential Clinical Criteria for
Physician-Assisted Suicide, in Last Rights? : Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Debated, 15thed., edited by Michael M. Uhlmann, Washington, D. C. : Ethics and Public Policy Center publish, pp.330-335.
Simons, Marlise, 2000, ”Dutch Becoming First Nation to Legalize Assisted Suicide”,
New York Times, November 29.
(三)其他資料來源
1.中央社新聞,<12分48秒台灣人死於癌>,http://news.cts.com.tw/cna/life/201106/201106150757726.html,2011年6月15日。
2.廖湧祥,<雙重效應倫理原則及其修正理論>,http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/ct/CT088/CT088E.htm,1991。
3.毒芹會社,http://newkia.hopto.org/archiver/?tid-62324.html,2009年11月18日。
4.華盛頓州尊嚴死法案,http://blog.chinatimes.com/ycchenmd/archive/2010/12/29/587942.html,2010年11月29日。
論文全文檔清單如下︰
1.電子全文(1930.066K)
(電子全文 已開放)
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
* *