Emanuel, E.J., et al. “Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: Attitudes and expereiences of onocology patients, oncologists, and the public.” Lancet 347.9018 (2006), 1805-10.
This article is from one of the most respected peer-reviewed academic medical journals in the world and is based on a comprehensive analysis of attitudes and opinions regarding euthanasia by both the public at large and oncology (cancer) patients. The study was conducted by the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Control at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Massachusetts. Using a questionnaire approach, the study interviews 155 cancer patients, 355 oncologists, and 193 members of the general public and found that almost 75% of those interviewed believed that severe and constant pain made the idea of euthanasia tolerable. This study also considered factors such as how much pain a patient was in, the issue of being a “burden” on the family, and other factors such as the existence of depression and its possible effect on the findings.While this is an exhaustive study of opinions, it does not probe into deeper reasons affecting these beliefs although it does offer some excellent and reliable insight into how the public and those suffering from illness think about the issue. One positive aspect of this article, however, is the level of research and scholarship behind it. There is no detectable bias present and since it is based on anonymous questionnaires the results do seem reliable and credible.
Doyal, Len. “Dignity in dying should include the legalization of non-voluntary euthanasia” Clinical Ethics 1 (2006): 65.
This article seeks to look at the many arguments supporting euthanasia, both for those suffering and aware of their options and those who are not capable of making the decision themselves. While it seeks to validate such arguments and claims, it looks carefully at the opposition as well. By examining the logical fallacies of the opposition (particularly in its use of the slippery slope arguments regarding euthanasia) and by providing sound and informed reasoning, this article, while it may be more editorial in style than others, offers a biased perspective on the issue yet distinctly addresses the critics and examines their most frequent problems. This article, unlike some of the others researched for this study, offers a more personal reflection on issues surrounding current euthanasia debates. The author, Len Doyal, has taught medical ethics at Middlesex University for 20 years, has authored numerous scholarly books and journal articles, and is highly respected in his field. By presenting a departure from the more dry statistics and opinion polls, this piece provides clear logic and reasoning without clouding and the possible bias inherent to some statistics and data sets offered elsewhere.
Dworkin, Gerald, et al. Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: For and Against. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
The authors of this book all have extensive backgrounds with writing about and teaching medical ethics and have presented both sides of the euthanasia case from both a data-driven as well as more personal viewpoint. While the bias is clearly for the legalization of euthanasia in the beginning of the book, the co-authors who offer insights throughout the text are against it and offer their own sets of reasons. One of the most significant anti-euthanasia claims expanded in this text is that of the slippery slope argument. Those arguing against allowing physician-assisted suicide are making the claim that if we allow this, eventually we will end up like the Nazis with death camps for those we do not deem for society. In addition, this book also looks closely at the social and religious reasons for rejection of euthanasia. While the book also deals with matters of public policy and more functional aspects of the issue, it is an excellent resource for garnering more scholarly perspectives on both sides simultaneously.
