This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Howard Brody, MD, PhD

Arch Neurol. 1996;53(11):1182-1183.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

BERNAT, IN the accompanying article, has nicely summarized important arguments both favoring and opposing physician-assisted suicide (PAS). In the public arena, the debate might appear at first to be one of extremes. On one side are those demanding a total ban on PAS. On the other are those who claim that PAS is a constitutional right and should remain unregulated, as a private transaction between patient and physician.

Within medical circles, however, the conceptual distance separating the disputants ought to be much narrower. Colleagues and I have argued that no physician can advocate, with integrity, anything resembling "PAS on demand." The alternative to an outright ban on PAS is PAS only as a last resort for a small group of carefully selected patients.^1-3

Bernat further focuses attention on one of the most critical elements in the debate—the impact of PAS policy on palliative care. He argues, as have many . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Family Practice, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?