Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMcGee, Andrew
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-25T12:16:25Z
dc.date.available2019-09-25T12:16:25Z
dc.date.created2016-02-16 22:44
dc.date.issued2011-12
dc.identifieroai:eprints.qut.edu.au:46903
dc.identifierhttp://eprints.qut.edu.au/46903/
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/276814
dc.description.abstractThis paper discusses the question of when pain and distress relief known to hasten death would cross the line between permissible conduct and killing. The issue is discussed in the context of organ donation after cardiac death, and considers the administration of analgesics, sedatives, and the controversial use of paralysing agents in the provision and withdrawal of ventilation.
dc.format.mediumapplication/pdf
dc.publisherCambridge Media
dc.relation.ispartofhttp://eprints.qut.edu.au/46903/1/46903.pdf
dc.relation.ispartofhttp://www.cambridgepublishing.com.au/publications/transplant-journal-of-australasia.aspx
dc.relation.ispartofMcGee, Andrew (2011) When does pain and distress relief hastening death become killing? Transplant Journal of Australasia, 20(3), pp. 6-9.
dc.rightsCopyright 2011 Andrew McGee
dc.sourceFaculty of Law; Australian Centre for Health Law Research; School of Law
dc.subject111000 NURSING
dc.subject180100 LAW
dc.subject220100 APPLIED ETHICS
dc.subject220101 Bioethics (human and animal)
dc.subject220106 Medical Ethics
dc.subject220300 PHILOSOPHY
dc.subject220305 Ethical Theory
dc.subjectintention, foresight
dc.subjectdonation after cardiac death
dc.subjectanalgesia, pain relief, sedatives, muscle relaxants
dc.subjectparalysing agents, nuro-muscular blockade
dc.subjectreason, motive, intention, murder
dc.titleWhen does pain and distress relief hastening death become killing?
dc.typeJournal Article
ge.collectioncodeBB
ge.collectioncodeGA
ge.dataimportlabelOAI metadata object
ge.identifier.legacyglobethics:7004191
ge.identifier.permalinkhttps://www.globethics.net/gel/7004191
ge.lastmodificationdate2016-03-21 17:19
ge.submissions0
ge.oai.exportid53
ge.oai.repositoryid996
ge.oai.setnameePrint Type = Journal Article
ge.oai.setnameStatus = Published
ge.oai.setnameSubject = Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification: MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES (110000): NURSING (111000)
ge.oai.setnameSubject = Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification: LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES (180000): LAW (180100)
ge.oai.setnameSubject = Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification: PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES (220000): APPLIED ETHICS (220100)
ge.oai.setnameSubject = Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification: PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES (220000): APPLIED ETHICS (220100): Bioethics (human and animal) (220101)
ge.oai.setnameSubject = Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification: PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES (220000): APPLIED ETHICS (220100): Medical Ethics (220106)
ge.oai.setnameSubject = Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification: PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES (220000): PHILOSOPHY (220300)
ge.oai.setnameSubject = Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification: PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES (220000): PHILOSOPHY (220300): Ethical Theory (220305)
ge.oai.setspec74797065733D61727469636C65
ge.oai.setspec7374617475733D707562
ge.oai.setspec7375626A656374733D616E7A737263:313130303030:313131303030
ge.oai.setspec7375626A656374733D616E7A737263:313830303030:313830313030
ge.oai.setspec7375626A656374733D616E7A737263:323230303030:323230313030
ge.oai.setspec7375626A656374733D616E7A737263:323230303030:323230313030:323230313031
ge.oai.setspec7375626A656374733D616E7A737263:323230303030:323230313030:323230313036
ge.oai.setspec7375626A656374733D616E7A737263:323230303030:323230333030
ge.oai.setspec7375626A656374733D616E7A737263:323230303030:323230333030:323230333035
ge.oai.streamid1
ge.setnameGlobeEthicsLib
ge.setspecglobeethicslib
ge.linkhttp://eprints.qut.edu.au/46903/


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record