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  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Coincidence

Matthew Menken, MD

Arch Neurol. 1997;54(3):328-330.

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

TOWARD THE end of his famous and nearly incomprehensible book, The Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant underscored the 3 most important questions in philosophic thought: What can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope? The modal auxiliaries can, ought, and may in these questions are precisely used, implying, respectively, that what is knowable by humans will always be limited, that the path to virtuous conduct is always uncertain, and that our dreams and plans become hopes because of a Being whose verdicts we can neither predict nor appeal.¹ The subjects of assisted suicide and euthanasia highlighted in this article fall firmly in the domain of philosophy, even though they are usually debated as questions of social policy and law. The issue is not only what we have a right to do, but also what it is right for us to do. I will argue . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the World Federation of Neurology Research Group on Medical Education and the Departments of Medicine and Neurology, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Brunswick.

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