東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Comparing Euthanasia Regimes: Empiri...

Petrakis, John A.,

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Comparing Euthanasia Regimes: Empirical and Normative Analysis /

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Comparing Euthanasia Regimes: Empirical and Normative Analysis // John A Petrakis.
作者:	Petrakis, John A.,
面頁冊數:	1 electronic resource (341 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-10, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International86-10A.
標題:	Political science. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31846137
ISBN:	9798310156630

Comparing Euthanasia Regimes: Empirical and Normative Analysis /
Petrakis, John A.,

Comparing Euthanasia Regimes: Empirical and Normative Analysis /John A Petrakis. - 1 electronic resource (341 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-10, Section: A.

This dissertation explains why some countries have legalized euthanasia while others have not, and why some have opted for more or less permissive regimes. Chapter 1 provides a conceptual and terminological foundation. It clarifies several common terms in the literature on euthanasia and establishes two ideal-types of euthanasia regime, structured around the concept of informed consent: narrow and broad. Next, this dissertation undertakes a qualitative empirical investigation of euthanasia. Chapter 2 describes the euthanasia regimes of thirteen countries, identifies nine negative cases, and demonstrates that society-based variables are insufficient to account for differences in euthanasia policy. Chapter 3 examines the matter from the perspective of institutional variables. Whereas the literature on judicial review and legislated rights expects legislatures to reason about moral matters more soundly than courts, the opposite occurred with respect to euthanasia policy. To explain this discrepancy, this dissertation argues that the party system is an institutional variable with significant effects: legislatures in two-party systems reason more soundly than those in multiparty systems, at least with respect to euthanasia. Moreover, there are institutional features explaining why courts did not behave as poorly as expected.The final two chapters perform a qualitative assessment of court cases. Chapter 4 reviews three legal systems where the courts imposed euthanasia: Canada, Colombia, and Germany. It concludes that this jurisprudence is internally inconsistent (vacillating between the competing principles of autonomy and death as an objective good) and advances an impoverished, radically libertarian understanding of the constitutional principles of dignity and autonomy. Chapter 5 turns to two legal systems where the courts refrained from imposing euthanasia: the United States and European Court of Human Rights. These courts emphasize the historical and institutional reasons favoring judicial restraint, while avoiding substantive moral reasoning on the question of euthanasia. This dissertation contends that this trend is based on a false premise of moral neutrality and is also practically self-defeating, as it allows the judicial proponents of euthanasia to dominate the moral conversation.

English

ISBN: 9798310156630Subjects--Topical Terms:

528916
Political science.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Assisted suicide

Comparing Euthanasia Regimes: Empirical and Normative Analysis /
LDR:03712nmm a22004213i 4500 001 2434749
005 20250930134354.5
006 m o d
007 cr|nu||||||||
008 261011s2025 miu||||||m |||||||eng d
020 $a 9798310156630
035 $a (MiAaPQD)AAI31846137
035 $a AAI31846137
040 $a MiAaPQD $b eng $c MiAaPQD $e rda
100 1 $a Petrakis, John A., $e author. $3 3824833
245 1 0 $a Comparing Euthanasia Regimes: Empirical and Normative Analysis / $c John A Petrakis.
264 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2025
300 $a 1 electronic resource (341 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-10, Section: A.
500 $a Advisors: Keys, Mary Committee members: Bambrick, Christina; Carozza, Paolo.
502 $b Ph.D. $c University of Notre Dame $d 2025.
520 $a This dissertation explains why some countries have legalized euthanasia while others have not, and why some have opted for more or less permissive regimes. Chapter 1 provides a conceptual and terminological foundation. It clarifies several common terms in the literature on euthanasia and establishes two ideal-types of euthanasia regime, structured around the concept of informed consent: narrow and broad. Next, this dissertation undertakes a qualitative empirical investigation of euthanasia. Chapter 2 describes the euthanasia regimes of thirteen countries, identifies nine negative cases, and demonstrates that society-based variables are insufficient to account for differences in euthanasia policy. Chapter 3 examines the matter from the perspective of institutional variables. Whereas the literature on judicial review and legislated rights expects legislatures to reason about moral matters more soundly than courts, the opposite occurred with respect to euthanasia policy. To explain this discrepancy, this dissertation argues that the party system is an institutional variable with significant effects: legislatures in two-party systems reason more soundly than those in multiparty systems, at least with respect to euthanasia. Moreover, there are institutional features explaining why courts did not behave as poorly as expected.The final two chapters perform a qualitative assessment of court cases. Chapter 4 reviews three legal systems where the courts imposed euthanasia: Canada, Colombia, and Germany. It concludes that this jurisprudence is internally inconsistent (vacillating between the competing principles of autonomy and death as an objective good) and advances an impoverished, radically libertarian understanding of the constitutional principles of dignity and autonomy. Chapter 5 turns to two legal systems where the courts refrained from imposing euthanasia: the United States and European Court of Human Rights. These courts emphasize the historical and institutional reasons favoring judicial restraint, while avoiding substantive moral reasoning on the question of euthanasia. This dissertation contends that this trend is based on a false premise of moral neutrality and is also practically self-defeating, as it allows the judicial proponents of euthanasia to dominate the moral conversation.
546 $a English
590 $a School code: 0165
650 4 $a Political science. $3 528916
650 4 $a Ethics. $3 517264
650 4 $a American studies. $3 2122720
653 $a Assisted suicide
653 $a Comparative constitutionalism
653 $a Euthanasia
653 $a Multiparty systems
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0323
690 $a 0394
710 2 $a University of Notre Dame. $b Political Science. $e degree granting institution. $3 3824834
720 1 $a Keys, Mary $e degree supervisor.
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 86-10A.
790 $a 0165
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2025
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31846137