Are Withholding and Withdrawing Therapy Always Morally Equivalent? A Reply to Sulmasy and Sugarman

Overview

Journal J Med Ethics

Publisher BMJ Publishing Group

Specialty Medical Ethics

Date 1994 Dec 1

PMID 11644646

Citations 5

Authors

John Harris

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

This paper argues that Sulmasy and Sugarman have not succeeded in showing a moral difference between withholding and withdrawing treatment. In particular, they have misunderstood historical entitlement theory, which does not automatically prefer a first occupant by just acquisition.

Citing Articles

Withdrawal Aversion and the Equivalence Test.

Wilkinson D, Butcherine E, Savulescu J Am J Bioeth. 2019; 19(3):21-28.

PMID: 30896352 PMC: 6436546. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1574465.

A Morally Permissible Moral Mistake? Reinterpreting a Thought Experiment as Proof of Concept.

Emmerich N, Gordijn B J Bioeth Inq. 2018; 15(2):269-278.

PMID: 29516332 PMC: 6422989. DOI: 10.1007/s11673-018-9845-x.

A costly separation between withdrawing and withholding treatment in intensive care.

Wilkinson D, Savulescu J Bioethics. 2012; 28(3):127-37.

PMID: 22762352 PMC: 3465577. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01981.x.

The difference between withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment.

Melltorp G, Nilstun T Intensive Care Med. 1998; 23(12):1264-7.

PMID: 9470083 DOI: 10.1007/s001340050496.

Withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging treatment--moral implications of a thought experiment.

Gillon R J Med Ethics. 1994; 20(4):203-4, 222.

PMID: 7861422 PMC: 1376554. DOI: 10.1136/jme.20.4.203.