Search results

Determining the manner and time of your own death -- The invisibility of rational suicide -- Which actions should we count as suicides? -- What is implied by the right to suicide? -- Suffering and dying well : on the proper aim of palliative care -- Continuous deep sedation and homicide -- Sedation until death : indications -- Euthanasia and the right to self-determination -- Ending lives with and without request -- The risks of legalization -- The Dutch and Belgian euthanasia laws : Potemkin villages? -- Mental illness -- Death wishes of the elderly -- The authority of advance directives -- Designing a regulatory system.

Discusses Michael Walzer's Spheres of Justice (1983), arguing that the discrepancies between distribution structures as discussed & applied inhibit the impact of the work. The notion of complex equality is addressed. Dominating goods are shown to be contingent upon group membership. Various spheres are then delineated by principles, based on membership, need, & desert. It is then posited that distributive principles are not derived from the social meaning of goods. P-spheres, defined by principles, & D-spheres, defined by actual distribuenda, are differentiated. The effect of the principle of subsidiarity & the nondominance principle are discussed. It is then argued that Walzer's arguments for complex fail due to a failure to distinguish between P- & D-spheres. The relation of tyranny is examined to distributive justice, showing that tyranny is an alternate form of dominance/injustice. Walzer's theory is compared to the Grand Theory of Justice & the advantages of his theory are highlighted. It is concluded that the genius of Walzer's theory lies in its success at applied ethics. T. Noland