Explore the vast range of titles available.

Death by lethal prescription is becoming a duty more than a right. Advocates of its legalization maintain it cannot validly be treated differently from rejection of life-preserving healthcare. Consequently, lethal prescriptions will be directed by surrogates for those unable to make healthcare decisions. Ultimately, health professionals will impose them against the wishes of patients and their families, as is now the case in Belgium. The view articulated by key legalization advocates that older people are unsustainably straining the healthcare system fosters the trend toward implementing a duty to die for older people, who are viewed as burdens.

With the help of medicine and technology we are living longer than ever before. As human life spans have increased, the moral and political issues surrounding longevity have become more complex. Should we desire to live as long as possible? What are the social ramifications of longer lives? How does a longer life span change the way we think about the value of our lives and about death and dying? Christine Overall offers a clear and intelligent discussion of the philosophical and cultural issues surrounding this difficult and often emotionally charged issue. Her book is unique in its comprehensive presentation and evaluation of the arguments—both ancient and contemporary—for and against prolonging life. It also proposes a progressive social policy for responding to dramatic increases in life expectancy. Writing from a feminist perspective, Overall highlights the ways that our biases about race, class, and gender have affected our views of elderly people and longevity, and her policy recommendations represent an effort to overcome these biases. She also covers the arguments surrounding the question of the \"duty to die\" and includes a provocative discussion of immortality. After judiciously weighing the benefits and the risks of prolonging human life, Overall persuasively concludes that the length of life does matter and that its duration can make a difference to the quality and value of our lives. Her book will be an essential guide as we consider our social responsibilities, the meaning of human life, and the prospects of living longer.

When considering our own death, we normally weigh its impact on the people we love and care about, as well as worrying about the way in which our life might end, hoping that not too much suffering precedes it. However, such view, despite necessary, is a passive understanding of death, interpreted as something that merely happens to us, where we would have some control over timing if physician-assisted dying were legal in our countries. But what if our relation to death would not end there? What if special medical needs, such as the emergency situation resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, could have a direct impact on us creating a moral duty to end our lives? That is the thesis that will be advocated for in this paper: a moral duty to die will arise in some people to save resources that will help others get through Covid-19. It is important to indicate that the duty to die is personally acknowledged and self-imposed, thus nobody can be coerced to carry it out; for autonomy would be lost and such action should be considered an instance of incitement to die, therefore being morally blameworthy.

It has been proposed that an old and ill person may have a ‘duty to die’, i.e. to refuse life-saving treatment or to end her own life, when she is dependent on the care of intimates and the burdens of care are becoming too heavy for them. In this paper I argue for three contentions: (1) You cannot have a strict duty to die, correlating to a claim-right of your relatives, because if they reach the point at which the burdens of care are larger than you can reasonably expect them to take, the natural conclusion is that their duty ends. (2) They may be prepared, however, to go on caring for you beyond that point. In that case your responsibility for their wellbeing may require you to refuse this care, even if this results in a situation for you in which death will be preferable to continued life. (3) If this is the correct understanding of your responsibilities, the objection that in the context of family life the burdens of care attached to one family member’s valued existence can never be ‘too heavy’, fails. It postulates unlimited concern on one side and a total lack of concern on the other.

What would make it the right time for you to die, or the wrong one? In particular, could it be the right time for you to die even if your loved ones want to make the sacrifices needed to prolong your life, because that would cost them too dearly? The worry is that it would be selfish to permit these sacrifies, and wrong for that reason. I think it matters that the sacrifies would occur within a relationship of mutual devotion, and I try to say how it matters. In particular, I argue against some fairly simple views of what constitutes impermissible selfishness in this context, and in favor of approaching such decisions in a different way.

In recent years, there has been a great deal of philosophical discussion about the alleged moral right to die. If there is such a moral right, then it would seem to imply a moral duty of others to not interfere with the exercise of the right. And this might have important implications for public policy insofar as public policy ought to track what is morally right. But is there a moral duty to die? If so, under what conditions, if any, ought one to have such a duty, and why? In this paper, I distinguish between different moral grounds for the putative moral duty to die: deontological, intuitionist, and contractarian. Subsequently, I argue in support of Paul Menzel's theory of health care distribution. More precisely, I concur with his claim that there is a moral duty to die inexpensively in health care contexts. Then I provide and defend a philosophical analysis of the conditions in which such a duty could exist.

Population genomics research drawing on genetic databases has expanded rapidly, with some of this information being combined in 'biobanks'. Managing this information in an appropriate way is a highly complex ethical issue in the health policy arena. This book combines theoretical and empirical research to analyze the areas of conflict and consensus in the regulatory and ethical frameworks that have been developed to govern biobanks. Ethicists from the Department of Ethics, Trade, Human Rights and Health Law (ETH) of the World Health Organization, the Institute of Biomedical Ethics of Geneva University and the Institute of Biomedical Ethics of the University of Zurich, with the support of the Geneva International Academic Network (GIAN), examine the conditions under which genetic databases can be established, kept, and made use of in an ethically acceptable way. In addition to a comprehensive review of the scientific literature and a comparative analysis of existing normative frameworks, they present the results of in-depth interviews with experts around the world concerning the most unresolved and controversial issues. The results of that study, combined with their normative analysis, leads to recommendations for a better international framework.