Prof. Jessica Penner | D493 | Spring 2022

Abraham De La Rosa, Annotated Bibliography Sources

Benrubi, Guy I. “Euthanasia — The Need for Procedural Safeguards.” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 326, no. 3, Massachusetts Medical Society, 1992, pp. 197–99,

This article discusses the necessary safeguards for Euthanasia if it were to be legalized. The author starts by delving into both sides of the argument and showing why people would argue for each side. The author then moves on to discuss who would be suitable for the task of helping patients with the process of Euthanasia. The author explains in depth why certain physicians would be required. The author ends the article by stating how he believes it would be unethical to allow patients to continue suffering but also stating there needs to be safeguards in order to help the patient and protect the integrity of medical professions.

I agree with the text. I believe there needs to be several experts to deal with such cases, with an anesthesiologist ensuring it is painless and the psychiatrists ensuring the patient is of sound mind. I am not confused on anything. The article was concise and informative. Though, I do wonder what special requirements anesthesiologists would need to qualify to administer this treatment. I would probably need to look up studies about what anesthesiologists must do to enter their professions. I would thank the author for writing such an informative piece and help enlighten me. This document tells me that dealing with the repercussions of Euthanasia would be a long process and understanding such repercussions is quite difficult. I need to broaden my research question.

I like the author’s writing style, though I do not think I have encountered a writing style I truly dislike. The author’s intended audience are other physicians and higher ups in the government. The genre is effective because the author is putting this information in an article which is public and available for any other person in a medical profession to see. It makes sense since he wants other people to consider the safeguards. I think this is a credible author and document since the author is a doctor who graduated from University of Florida Health Science Center.

“The psychiatrist would be needed to conduct a complete evaluation of the patient, to try to determine whether the request for euthanasia was made from a relatively rational standpoint, as opposed to a state of pathologic depression.”


  1. Abraham

    Battin, Margaret P., et al. “Legal Physician-Assisted Dying in Oregon and the Netherlands: Evidence Concerning the Impact on Patients in ‘vulnerable’ Groups.” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 33, no. 10, BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Institute of Medical Ethics, 2007, pp. 591–40,

    The document starts with addressing the question the author wishes to answer, “Would legalizing euthanasia make it so vulnerable patients would be targeted and pressured into accepting it?” The author first presents the slippery slope argument and data from Oregon and the Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal. The author also presents the legal background to give context to euthanasia in Oregon and the Netherlands. The author analyzes the data and finds that there are not many groups where there is a heightened risk of patients dying. The author ultimately concludes that there is no evidence that legalizing euthanasia will have a disproportionate impact on patients and vulnerable groups.

    I am inclined to agree with the text, considering it presented a sound argument and supported it with evidence. I do not have any questions. Some information you might need to study in order to better understand this article is information concerning rates of death in other categories besides euthanasia, to get a better picture of what the other is talking about. I would ask the author if there is any way to help the people within the aids group concerning the heightened risk. This document tells me that there is most likely no great and disastrous impact legalizing euthanasia can have and it is most likely safe to do so.

    I like the author’s writing style and the way he organizes information. The author’s intended audience are people who are concerned about a potential slippery slope with legalizing euthanasia. The genre is effective and the choice makes sense, since the author is able to structure the document in a way where it is easy to understand. The author is credible, since she is a professor and medical ethicist and the document uses facts and data to support its claims.

    ” Uninsured people: no evidence of heightened risk
    Three Oregon patients (1%) did not have documented health insurance, and in four cases, insurance status was unknown. In contrast, 16.9% of non-elderly adults in Oregon were uninsured (persons 65 and older are insured by Medicare). In the Netherlands, virtually all patients are covered by mandated nationwide health insurance.”

  2. Abraham

    Kouwenhoven, Pauline, et al. “Opinions About Euthanasia and Advanced Dementia: A Qualitative Study Among Dutch Physicians and Members of the General Public.” BMC Medical Ethics, vol. 16, no. 1, BioMed Central Ltd, 2015, pp. 7–7,

    The author first gives the reader an abstract, detailing the background, methods, result and conclusion of a study concerning the use of euthanasia on people with advanced dementia. The study is conducted in the Netherlands and the author states the legal background of the argument. The author seeks different physicians and nurses for interviews on their views of this debate and the use of AEDs (Advance Euthanasia Directive). The author gives us an analysis on their interviews and notes how the voluntary character and confidentiality are emphasized. Almost all physicians agreed on the need for explicit confirmation and acknowledged the limits of AEDs. There is also an emotional impact and fear of legal consequences physicians have when it comes to using euthanasia. The author concluded that communication is necessary for understanding the use of euthanasia on patients with advanced dementia and the application of AEDs is very limited.

    I do not believe there is any real position the author takes when he is writing this article. This article is non-opinionated. I do not have any questions. You would probably have to look up the criteria for Euthanasia in the Netherlands to understand the article better and what constitutes as unbearable suffering and a voluntary request. I would ask the author about cases where AEDs were used and interviews o of how family members felt. This document tells me about the amount of thought physicians put into this debate and how even in places where euthanasia is legal, there are safeguards and consideration for the patient’s will.

    I like the author’s writing style, though there is a great amount of vocabulary which I needed to learn in order to fully understand this article. The author’s intended audience are people who are concerned about this debate and the general public and the purpose is to inform people about this argument without taking a side. The genre is effective and it makes sense, with how the article aims to inform. I know the article and author are credible since the website tells us about several organizations the author is affiliated with and shows the other publications the author has. The author works at Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care.

    “Both physicians and members of general public recognized the importance of respecting a competent wish as laid down in an AED. However, both also mentioned possible problems and limitations regarding a formerly written request: foreseeing future wishes and suffering was regarded as difficult, because people may change their preferences and adapt to new situations they previously thought to be unbearable.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *