Final Exit Book Pdf 92

Final Exit (fully titled Final Exit: The Practicalities of Self-Deliverance and Assisted Suicide for the Dying) is a 1991 book written by Derek Humphry, a British-born American journalist, author, and assisted suicide advocate who co-founded the now-defunct Hemlock Society in 1980 and co-founded the Final Exit Network in 2004. The book was first published in 1991 by the Hemlock Society US in hardback. The following year, its 2nd edition was published by Dell in trade paperback. The current updated edition was published in 2010.[1]

The book, often described as a "suicide manual", describes the means that the terminally ill may use to end their lives. The book further outlines relevant laws, techniques, and living wills.[2] Final Exit was perceived as controversial,[3] and the book drove debate regarding the right to die. Another concern was that people who were mentally ill could use the information found in the book to end their lives.[4][5] Despite the controversy, Final Exit reached #1 on The New York Times Best Seller list in August of 1991.[6]

final exit book pdf 92

Download File

In 1991, Final Exit spent 18 weeks on The New York Times non-fiction Best Seller list, it reached #1 in August and was selected by USA Today in 2007 as one of the 25 most influential books of the quarter century.[8]

In 2000, Derek Humphry recorded a VHS video version of the information in the book;[10] a DVD version[11] and a Kindle version[12] were released in 2006 and 2011, respectively. A 4th edition, 'Final Exit 2020' has been released as an Ebook.

Derek Humphry's publication of Final Exit, billed as a suicide manual for the terminally ill, has played no small part in fueling the current swirl of efforts to legalize physician-assisted suicide. Concern about whether physicians should assist suicide or deliberately kill their patients is ancient. But the recent reawakening of public attention has been marked by the Journal of the American Medical Association's "It's Over, Debbie," Dr. Timothy Quill's piece in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Jack Kevorkian's dispatch of Janet Adkins and more recently two others in Michigan, and now Final Exit. This last holds a special place in the roster. Final Exit inaugurates a new stage in the debate--the end. At least that is evidently how Humphry would have it. The book rejects the very idea of considered argument. Instead, it urges doctors and nurses to begin performing not only assisted suicide but also euthanasia, without engaging in discussion, seeking consensus, or awaiting changes in law. The book meanwhile encourage patients to commit suicide, with misstatements making the alternatives seem exceedingly difficult. Wherever you stand in the debate, this book is thus profoundly disturbing. It is nearly certain to close minds, to lead caregivers to irresponsible acts, and to contribute to unwarranted deaths. It is hard to imagine a question more significant than whether certain citizens, particularly physicians, should be permitted to take the lives of others. Yet this ultimate question is here reduced to propaganda and diatribe. There are profound lessons in Final Exit, especially for those in bioethics.

This paper is structured as follows. Sect. 2 presents the theoretical background of the study and provides a literature overview. We illustrate the design of our study, including how data were collected and analyzed, in Sect. 3. The results and propositions of the study are presented in Sect. 4. We critically discuss our findings in Sect. 5. The theoretical contributions and practical implications are explained in Sects. 6 and 7. Limitations of the study and avenues for future research can be found in Sect. 8. A short conclusion is presented in the final section.

The mentioned research gap in entrepreneurial exit intention literature suggests an explorative research design. Theory building using a qualitative approach seems much more appropriate than theory testing. Miles et al. (2019) recommend that researchers use inductive approaches when there is a need for deep understanding, contextualization, and causal inference. Likewise, Eisenhardt (1989) states that inductive studies are most suitable for generating an initial understanding of a process.

We utilized triangulation during the study. In this context, triangulation means that the object of interest is examined from multiple perspectives. That can be a valuable addition to understanding events and can increase the validity and robustness of a study (Flick 2018; Jick 1979; Miles et al. 2019; Pettigrew 1992; Yin 2018). Moreover, triangulation allows for a greater expanse of knowledge (Denzin 1989, 2009). Thus, eight consultants were interviewed in addition to twenty interviewed entrepreneurs. These consultants have been involved in numerous entrepreneurial exits, mainly exits via mergers and acquisitions. The selection criterion for these advisors was that they must have long-lasting M&A experience with entrepreneurial target firms (see Table 2). Additional sources, such as press releases, company brochures, websites, and informal telephone follow-ups, were also used. These data sources and informal conversations (e.g., at meetings, entrepreneurial fairs, or telephone follow-ups) were mainly used for reflection or summary memos.

Our grounded theory framework illustrates first-order concepts and second-order themes that explain why the interviewees of the self-funded group opted for acquisition as an exit strategy (see Fig. 2).

The interviewees of the self-funded group are owners and managing directors at the same time. Most of the self-funded entrepreneurs are quite old, and they became aware as they aged that they would soon have to consider their exit from their firms. The following conversation with A17, a 70-year-old interviewee, illustrates this.

In another example, A01, a 54-year-old interviewee, explained how self-funded entrepreneurs feel when they have to exit their companies. According to him, when entrepreneurs build a company, they do not want it to decay after their exit. Interviewee A01 further stated that entrepreneurs need to arrange succession in advance because they are not only at risk of financial loss but also of emotional loss.

When the interviewees saw that family succession was impossible, they considered other exit strategies. The self-funded entrepreneurs of our sample considered selling their companies to capable managers as part of a management buyout (MBO). This process is exemplified in the statement of Interviewee A11, a 60-year-old former owner of a landscaping company. He first expected that his son would take over his company. However, when this son rejected the offer, Interviewee A11 considered a management buyout. The following conversation illustrated the circumstances:

When family succession and a management buyout are not practicable, self-funded firm owners have to opt for another exit strategy. This exit strategy is typically an acquisition as a harvest exit strategy. The following conversation with Interviewee B02, an M&A consultant, summarizes the circumstances:

Like Interviewee A11, most entrepreneurs of the self-funded group stated that they were not necessarily after achieving a high-revenue sale for their companies, since they are financially independent owing to their high income over the past decades. In contrast, the interviewees of the investor-backed group were not financially independent at the time of their firm exit. Fifty-year-old Interviewee A15 explained the difference between the two groups in detail:

Initial public offering is a harvest exit strategy. The interviewees of the self-funded group were asked about their attitudes towards IPOs. All interviewed entrepreneurs of this group had no desire to exit via an initial public offering. They did not give IPOs serious thoughts. A conversation with Interviewee A11 illustrates this:

The Interviewees of the self-funded group desired to exit via family succession, management buyout, and firm acquisition by a third party. They did not desire voluntary cessation exit strategies such as firm liquidation or business discontinuance.

Fig. 3 illustrates first-order concepts and second-order themes of our grounded theory framework. The framework explains why the interviewees of the investors-backed group opted for acquisition as an exit strategy.

For the interviewees of the investor-backed group, an exit through an initial public offering is a desirable harvest exit strategy. This strategy offers firm owners a high financial return. Many interviewees of this group considered initial public offerings the most attractive exit strategy. For example, A02, a 43-year-old interviewee, described an IPO as the silver bullet:

Interviewee A02: The silver bullet would be like Google or Facebook did. Where they [the founders] say we will make an initial public offering, and we make the initial public offering in such a way that we retain complete control! Interviewer: Yes? Interviewee A02: But, hardly anyone in Europe has achieved that! But even if a European goes public, which is extremely rare, he [the founder] usually does not manage to maintain complete control [of the company].

As explained, the legacy idea was weaker in the group of investor-backed entrepreneurs. The interviewees of this group wanted to exit their companies through a single payment and then found a new company as soon as possible. In contrast to the interviewees of the self-funded group, payment via earn-out is not favorable for interviewees of the investor-backed group. The following statement by Interviewee A02 illustrates this preference:

The data from our sample suggests that most of the self-funded entrepreneurs intended family succession as a stewardship exit strategy, but this intention could not be fulfilled. These exit preferences have been observed by M&A consultants, such as Interviewee B03:

Proposition 1. Self-funded entrepreneurs tend to choose a stewardship exit strategy (i.e., family succession or management buyout) rather than a financial harvest exit strategy or a voluntary cessation exit strategy. 2ff7e9595c