Category Archives: Euthanasia

Euthanasia – New World Encyclopedia

Posted: June 25, 2016 at 11:01 am

Euthanasia (from Greek: -, eu, "good," , thanatos, "death") is the practice of terminating the life of a human being or animal with an incurable disease, intolerable suffering, or a possibly undignified death in a painless or minimally painful way, for the purpose of limiting suffering. It is a form of homicide; the question is whether it should be considered justifiable or criminal.

Euthanasia refers both to the situation when a substance is administered to a person with intent to kill that person or, with basically the same intent, when removing someone from life support. There may be a legal divide between making someone die and letting someone die. In some instances, the first is (in some societies) defined as murder, the other is simply allowing nature to take its course. Consequently, laws around the world vary greatly with regard to euthanasia and are constantly subject to change as cultural values shift and better palliative care or treatments become available. Thus, while euthanasia is legal in some nations, in others it is criminalized.

Of related note is the fact that suicide, or attempted suicide, is no longer a criminal offense in most states. This demonstrates that there is consent among the states to self determination, however, the majority of the states argue that assisting in suicide is illegal and punishable even when there is written consent from the individual. The problem with written consent is that it is still not sufficient to show self-determination, as it could be coerced; if active euthanasia were to become legal, a process would have to be in place to assure that the patient's consent is fully voluntary.

Euthanasia has been used with several meanings:

The term euthanasia is used only in senses (6) and (7) in this article. When other people debate about euthanasia, they could well be using it in senses (1) through (5), or with some other definition. To make this distinction clearer, two other definitions of euthanasia follow:

There can be passive, non-aggressive, and aggressive euthanasia.

James Rachels has challenged both the use and moral significance of that distinction for several reasons:

To begin with a familiar type of situation, a patient who is dying of incurable cancer of the throat is in terrible pain, which can no longer be satisfactorily alleviated. He is certain to die within a few days, even if present treatment is continued, but he does not want to go on living for those days since the pain is unbearable. So he asks the doctor for an end to it, and his family joins in this request. Suppose the doctor agrees to withhold treatment. The justification for his doing so is that the patient is in terrible agony, and since he is going to die anyway, it would be wrong to prolong his suffering needlessly. But now notice this. If one simply withholds treatment, it may take the patient longer to die, and so he may suffer more than he would if more direct action were taken and a lethal injection given. This fact provides strong reason for thinking that, once the initial decision not to prolong his agony has been made, active euthanasia is actually preferable to passive euthanasia, rather than the reverse (Rachels 1975 and 1986).

There is also involuntary, non-voluntary, and voluntary euthanasia.

Mercy killing refers to killing someone to put them out of their suffering. The killer may or may not have the informed consent of the person killed. We shall use the term mercy killing only when there is no consent. Legally, mercy killing without consent is usually treated as murder.

Murder is intentionally killing someone in an unlawful way. There are two kinds of murder:

In most parts of the world, types (1) and (2) murder are treated identically. In other parts, type (1) murder is excusable under certain special circumstances, in which case it ceases to be considered murder. Murder is, by definition, unlawful. It is a legal term, not a moral one. Whether euthanasia is murder or not is a simple question for lawyers"Will you go to jail for doing it or won't you?"

Whether euthanasia should be considered murder or not is a matter for legislators. Whether euthanasia is good or bad is a deep question for the individual citizen. A right to die and a pro life proponent could both agree "euthanasia is murder," meaning one will go to jail if he were caught doing it, but the right to die proponent would add, "but under certain circumstances, it should not be, just as it is not considered murder now in the Netherlands."

The term "euthanasia" comes from the Greek words eu and thanatos, which combined means good death. Hippocrates mentions euthanasia in the Hippocratic Oath, which was written between 400 and 300 B.C.E. The original Oath states: To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death."

Despite this, the ancient Greeks and Romans generally did not believe that life needed to be preserved at any cost and were, in consequence, tolerant of suicide in cases where no relief could be offered to the dying or, in the case of the Stoics and Epicureans, where a person no longer cared for his life.

The English Common Law from the 1300s until today also disapproved of both suicide and assisting suicide. It distinguished a suicide, who was by definition of unsound mind, from a felo-de-se or "evildoer against himself," who had coolly decided to end it all and, thereby, perpetrated an infamous crime. Such a person forfeited his entire estate to the crown. Furthermore his corpse was subjected to public indignities, such as being dragged through the streets and hung from the gallows, and was finally consigned to "ignominious burial," and, as the legal scholars put it, the favored method was beneath a crossroads with a stake driven through the body.

Since the nineteenth century, euthanasia has sparked intermittent debates and activism in North America and Europe. According to medical historian Ezekiel Emanuel, it was the availability of anesthesia that ushered in the modern era of euthanasia. In 1828, the first known anti-euthanasia law in the United States was passed in the state of New York, with many other localities and states following suit over a period of several years.

Euthanasia societies were formed in England, in 1935, and in the U.S., in 1938, to promote aggressive euthanasia. Although euthanasia legislation did not pass in the U.S. or England, in 1937, doctor-assisted euthanasia was declared legal in Switzerland as long as the person ending the life has nothing to gain. During this period, euthanasia proposals were sometimes mixed with eugenics.

While some proponents focused on voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill, others expressed interest in involuntary euthanasia for certain eugenic motivations (targeting those such as the mentally "defective"). Meanwhile, during this same era, U.S. court trials tackled cases involving critically ill people who requested physician assistance in dying as well as mercy killings, such as by parents of their severely disabled children (Kamisar 1977).

Prior to World War II, the Nazis carried out a controversial and now-condemned euthanasia program. In 1939, Nazis, in what was code named Action T4, involuntarily euthanized children under three who exhibited mental retardation, physical deformity, or other debilitating problems whom they considered "unworthy of life. This program was later extended to include older children and adults.

Leo Alexander, a judge at the Nuremberg trials after World War II, employed a "slippery slope" argument to suggest that any act of mercy killing inevitably will lead to the mass killings of unwanted persons:

The beginnings at first were a subtle shifting in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually, the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted and finally all non-Germans.

Critics of this position point to the fact that there is no relation at all between the Nazi "euthanasia" program and modern debates about euthanasia. The Nazis, after all, used the word "euthanasia" to camouflage mass murder. All victims died involuntarily, and no documented case exists where a terminal patient was voluntarily killed. The program was carried out in the closest of secrecy and under a dictatorship. One of the lessons that we should learn from this experience is that secrecy is not in the public interest.

However, due to outrage over Nazi euthanasia crimes, in the 1940s and 1950s, there was very little public support for euthanasia, especially for any involuntary, eugenics-based proposals. Catholic church leaders, among others, began speaking against euthanasia as a violation of the sanctity of life.

Nevertheless, owing to its principle of double effect, Catholic moral theology did leave room for shortening life with pain-killers and what would could be characterized as passive euthanasia (Papal statements 1956-1957). On the other hand, judges were often lenient in mercy-killing cases (Humphrey and Wickett, 1991, ch.4).

During this period, prominent proponents of euthanasia included Glanville Williams (The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law) and clergyman Joseph Fletcher ("Morals and medicine"). By the 1960s, advocacy for a right-to-die approach to voluntary euthanasia increased.

A key turning point in the debate over voluntary euthanasia (and physician-assisted dying), at least in the United States, was the public furor over the case of Karen Ann Quinlan. In 1975, Karen Ann Quinlan, for reasons still unknown, ceased breathing for several minutes. Failing to respond to mouth-to mouth resuscitation by friends she was taken by ambulance to a hospital in New Jersey. Physicians who examined her described her as being in "a chronic, persistent, vegetative state," and later it was judged that no form of treatment could restore her to cognitive life. Her father asked to be appointed her legal guardian with the expressed purpose of discontinuing the respirator which kept Karen alive. After some delay, the Supreme Court of New Jersey granted the request. The respirator was turned off. Karen Ann Quinlan remained alive but comatose until June 11, 1985, when she died at the age of 31.

In 1990, Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan physician, became infamous for encouraging and assisting people in committing suicide which resulted in a Michigan law against the practice in 1992. Kevorkian was later tried and convicted in 1999, for a murder displayed on television. Meanwhile in 1990, the Supreme Court approved the use of non-aggressive euthanasia.

Suicide or attempted suicide, in most states, is no longer a criminal offense. This demonstrates that there is consent among the states to self determination, however, the majority of the states postulate that assisting in suicide is illegal and punishable even when there is written consent from the individual. Let us now see how individual religions regard the complex subject of euthanasia.

In Catholic medical ethics, official pronouncements tend to strongly oppose active euthanasia, whether voluntary or not. Nevertheless, Catholic moral theology does allow dying to proceed without medical interventions that would be considered "extraordinary" or "disproportionate." The most important official Catholic statement is the Declaration on Euthanasia (Sacred Congregation, Vatican 1980).

The Catholic policy rests on several core principles of Catholic medical ethics, including the sanctity of human life, the dignity of the human person, concomitant human rights, and due proportionality in casuistic remedies (Ibid.).

Protestant denominations vary widely on their approach to euthanasia and physician assisted death. Since the 1970s, Evangelical churches have worked with Roman Catholics on a sanctity of life approach, though the Evangelicals may be adopting a more exceptionless opposition. While liberal Protestant denominations have largely eschewed euthanasia, many individual advocates (such as Joseph Fletcher) and euthanasia society activists have been Protestant clergy and laity. As physician assisted dying has obtained greater legal support, some liberal Protestant denominations have offered religious arguments and support for limited forms of euthanasia.

Not unlike the trend among Protestants, Jewish movements have become divided over euthanasia since the 1970s. Generally, Orthodox Jewish thinkers oppose voluntary euthanasia, often vigorously, though there is some backing for voluntary passive euthanasia in limited circumstances (Daniel Sinclair, Moshe Tendler, Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Moshe Feinstein). Likewise, within the Conservative Judaism movement, there has been increasing support for passive euthanasia. In Reform Judaism responsa, the preponderance of anti-euthanasia sentiment has shifted in recent years to increasing support for certain passive euthanasia.

In Theravada Buddhism, a monk can be expelled for praising the advantages of death, even if they simply describe the miseries of life or the bliss of the afterlife in a way that might inspire a person to commit suicide or pine away to death. In caring for the terminally ill, one is forbidden to treat a patient so as to bring on death faster than would occur if the disease were allowed to run its natural course (Buddhist Monastic Code I: Chapter 4).

In Hinduism, the Law of Karma states that any bad action happening in one lifetime will be reflected in the next. Euthanasia could be seen as murder, and releasing the Atman before its time. However, when a body is in a vegetative state, and with no quality of life, it could be seen that the Atman has already left. When avatars come down to earth they normally do so to help out humankind. Since they have already attained Moksha they choose when they want to leave.

Muslims are against euthanasia. They believe that all human life is sacred because it is given by Allah, and that Allah chooses how long each person will live. Human beings should not interfere in this. Euthanasia and suicide are not included among the reasons allowed for killing in Islam.

"Do not take life, which Allah made sacred, other than in the course of justice" (Qur'an 17:33).

"If anyone kills a personunless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the landit would be as if he killed the whole people" (Qur'an 5:32).

The Prophet said: "Amongst the nations before you there was a man who got a wound, and growing impatient (with its pain), he took a knife and cut his hand with it and the blood did not stop till he died. Allah said, 'My Slave hurried to bring death upon himself so I have forbidden him (to enter) Paradise'" (Sahih Bukhari 4.56.669).

The debate in the ethics literature on euthanasia is just as divided as the debate on physician-assisted suicide, perhaps more so. "Slippery-slope" arguments are often made, supported by claims about abuse of voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands.

Arguments against it are based on the integrity of medicine as a profession. In response, autonomy and quality-of-life-base arguments are made in support of euthanasia, underscored by claims that when the only way to relieve a dying patient's pain or suffering is terminal sedation with loss of consciousness, death is a preferable alternativean argument also made in support of physician-assisted suicide.

To summarize, there may be some circumstances when euthanasia is the morally correct action, however, one should also understand that there are real concerns about legalizing euthanasia because of fear of misuse and/or overuse and the fear of the slippery slope leading to a loss of respect for the value of life. What is needed are improvements in research, the best palliative care available, and above all, people should, perhaps, at this time begin modifying homicide laws to include motivational factors as a legitimate defense.

Just as homicide is acceptable in cases of self-defense, it could be considered acceptable if the motive is mercy. Obviously, strict parameters would have to be established that would include patients' request and approval, or, in the case of incompetent patients, advance directives in the form of a living will or family and court approval.

Mirroring this attitude, there are countries and/or statessuch as Albania (in 1999), Australia (1995), Belgium (2002), The Netherlands (2002), the U.S. state of Oregon, and Switzerland (1942)that, in one way or other, have legalized euthanasia; in the case of Switzerland, a long time ago.

In others, such as UK and U.S., discussion has moved toward ending its illegality. On November 5, 2006, Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists submitted a proposal to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics calling for consideration of permitting the euthanasia of disabled newborns. The report did not address the current illegality of euthanasia in the United Kingdom, but rather calls for reconsideration of its viability as a legitimate medical practice.

In the U.S., recent Gallup Poll surveys showed that more than 60 percent of Americans supported euthanasia (Carroll 2006; Moore 2005) and attempts to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide resulted in ballot initiatives and legislation bills within the United States in the last 20 years. For example, Washington voters saw Ballot Initiative 119 in 1991, California placed Proposition 161 on the ballot in 1992, Michigan included Proposal B in their ballot in 1998, and Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act. The United States Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of assisted suicide, in 2000, recognizing individual interests and deciding how, rather than whether they will die.

Perhaps a fitting conclusion of the subject could be the Japanese suggestion of the Law governing euthanasia:

All links retrieved May 26, 2015.

Autopsy Brain death Clinical death Euthanasia Persistent vegetative state Terminal illness

Immortality Infant mortality Legal death Maternal death Mortality rate

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

Follow this link:

Euthanasia - New World Encyclopedia

Posted in Euthanasia | Comments Off

Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide – All sides

Posted: at 11:01 am

"Hot" religious topics Menu

A root cause for the desire to commit suicide is often depression. This can often be controlled with medication. If you are depressed, I strongly recommend that you seek medical help to see if your depression can be lifted.

Another cause of suicidal ideation is often intolerable levels of pain associated with a terminal illness, like cancer. Many physicians are reluctant to prescribe high levels of some pain killers out of fear that the person will become addicted to them. If you are suffering from pain in spite of medication, try insisting on better levels or types of pain killers. Recruit friends and family to intercede with your physician if you can.

If you feel overwhelmed and lack an effective support system of friends and family, consider tapping into the services of a crisis hotline. These are called by various names: distress centers, crisis centers, suicide prevention centers, etc. Their telephone numbers can often be found in the first page(s) of your telephone directory. If you cannot find a number for a center in your area, try phoning directory assistance at 4-1-1.

In the United States, you can call 1-800-273-TALK. See: http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org/ They will direct you to a crisis center in your area.

U.S. Crisis Center map

Crisis centers/distress centers/ etc are often confidential services that you can phone up at any time of the day or night for support. You can usually remain anonymous.

Wikipedia lists suicide crisis lines for many countries from Australia to the United States at: https://en.wikipedia.org/ Although these lines are often called "suicide prevention lines" or "crisis lines." most of the people calling are not suicidal, not in crisis, but are in distress. So, don't be reluctant to call them because you are not suicidal or in crisis.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide – Arguments – NHS Choices

Posted: at 11:01 am

There are arguments both for and against euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Some of the main arguments are outlined below. You should be aware that these arguments do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of NHS Choices or the Department of Health.

There are twomain types of argument used to support the practices of euthanasia and assisted suicide. They are the:

These arguments are discussed in more detail below.

The ethical argument states thateveryone should beable to choose when and how they want to die, and that they should be able to do so with dignity.

The concept of "quality of life" is an important aspect of this argument. The idea put forward as part of the religious argument against euthanasia and assisted suicide (see below)that life is sacred and is therefore alwaysbetter than deathis rejected. The ethical argumentsuggests that life should only continue as long as a person feels their life is worth living.

For example, someone who supports the use ofeuthanasia or assisted suicide based on the ethical argument may believe that a person should be able to choose to end their life if they are living in intolerable pain and their quality of life is severely diminished.

The pragmatic argument states that many of the practices used inend of life care are a type of euthanasia in all but name.

For example, there is the practice of making a "do not attemptcardiopulmonary resuscitation" (DNACPR)order, where a person requests not to receive treatment if their heart stops beating or they stop breathing.

Critics have argued that DNACPR is a type of passive euthanasia, because a person is denied treatment that could potentially save their life.

Another controversial practice is known as palliative sedation. This is where a person who is experiencing extreme suffering, for which there is no effective treatment, is put to sleep using sedative medication. Palliative sedation is often used to treat burns victims who are expected to die.

While palliative sedation is not directly carried out for the purpose of ending lives, many of the sedatives used carry a risk of speeding up death. Therefore, itcould be argued that palliative sedation is a type of active euthanasia.

The pragmatic argument is that if euthanasia in these forms is being carried outanyway, society might as well legalise it and ensure that it is properly regulated.

It should be stressed, however,that the above interpretations of DNACPR and palliative sedation are very controversial and are not accepted by most doctors, nurses and palliative care specialists.

Read more about thealternatives to euthanasia for responses to these interpretations.

There are four main types of argument used by people who are againsteuthanasia and assisted suicide. They are known as the:

These arguments are described in more detail below.

The most common religious argument is that human beings are the sacred creation of God, so human life is, by extension, sacred.This is known as the "sanctity of life".

Only God should choose when a human life ends, so committing an act of euthanasia or assisting in suicide is acting against the will of God and is sinful.

This beliefor variations of itis shared by many members of the Christian, Jewish and Islamic faiths, although some individuals may personally feel that there are occasions when quality of life becomes more important than sanctity of life.

The issue is more complex in Hinduism and Buddhism.Scholars from both faiths have argued that euthanasia and assisted suicide are ethically acceptable acts in some circumstances, but these views do not have universal support among Hindus and Buddhists.

Some non-religious people may also have similar beliefs based on the view that permitting euthanasia and assisted suicide "devalues" life.

The slippery slope argument is based on the idea that once a healthcare service, and by extension the government, starts killing its own citizens, a line is crossed that should never have been crossed, and a dangerous precedent has been set.

The concern is that a society that allows voluntary euthanasia will gradually change its attitudes to include non-voluntary and then involuntary euthanasia.

Legalised voluntary euthanasia could eventually lead to a wide range of unforeseen consequences, such as the following:

The medical ethics argument,which is similar to the "slippery slope" argument,states that legalising euthanasia would violate one of the most important medical ethics, which, in the words of the International Code of Medical Ethics, is: "A physician shall always bear in mind the obligation to respect human life".

Asking doctors to abandon their obligation to preserve human life could damage the doctor-patient relationship.Hastening death on a regular basis could become a routine administrative task for doctors, leading to a lack of compassion when dealing with elderly, disabled or terminally ill people.

In turn, people with complex health needs or severe disabilities could become distrustful of their doctors efforts and intentions. They may think thattheir doctor would rather "kill them off" than take responsibility for a complex and demanding case.

The alternative argument is that advances in palliative care and mental health treatment mean there is no reason why any person should ever feel that they are suffering intolerably, whether it is physical or mental suffering, or both.

According to this argument,if a person is giventhe right care, in the right environment, there should be no reason why they are unable tohave a dignified and painless natural death.

Page last reviewed: 11/08/2014

Next review due: 11/08/2017

Read this article:

Euthanasia and assisted suicide - Arguments - NHS Choices

Posted in Euthanasia | Comments Off

Euthanasia | Define Euthanasia at Dictionary.com

Posted: June 22, 2016 at 11:44 pm

Historical Examples

Illstarred heresiarch' In a Greek watercloset he breathed his last: euthanasia.

When I am too old to work and ready for euthanasia I shall have you come and talk me to death.

In August, 1900, came the euthanasia for which he had longed.

People did not deplore the dead warrior, but admired his euthanasia.

It was here that one enthusiast achieved a fisherman's euthanasia, for he dropped dead suddenly in the very act of playing a fish.

British Dictionary definitions for euthanasia Expand

the act of killing someone painlessly, esp to relieve suffering from an incurable illness Also called mercy killing

Word Origin

C17: via New Latin from Greek: easy death, from eu- + thanatos death

Word Origin and History for euthanasia Expand

c.1600, from Greek euthanasia "an easy or happy death," from eu- "good" (see eu-) + thanatos "death" (see thanatology). Sense of "legally sanctioned mercy killing" is first recorded in English 1869.

euthanasia in Medicine Expand

euthanasia euthanasia (y'th-n'zh, -zh-) n.

The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.

A quiet, painless death.

euthanasia in Science Expand

euthanasia in Culture Expand

Painlessly putting someone to death usually someone with an incurable and painful disease; mercy killing.

See original here:

Euthanasia | Define Euthanasia at Dictionary.com

Posted in Euthanasia | Comments Off

Euthanasia – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted: June 21, 2016 at 6:47 am

This article is about euthanasia of humans. For mercy killings performed on other animals, see Animal euthanasia.

Euthanasia (from Greek: ; "good death": , eu; "well" or "good" , thanatos; "death") is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.[1]

There are different euthanasia laws in each country. The British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering".[2] In the Netherlands and Flanders, euthanasia is understood as "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient".[3]

Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries. Non-voluntary euthanasia (patient's consent unavailable) is illegal in all countries. Involuntary euthanasia (without asking consent or against the patient's will) is also illegal in all countries and is usually considered murder.[4] As of 2006, euthanasia is the most active area of research in contemporary bioethics.[5]

In some countries there is a divisive public controversy over the moral, ethical, and legal issues of euthanasia. Those who are against euthanasia may argue for the sanctity of life, while proponents of euthanasia rights emphasize alleviating suffering, and preserving bodily integrity, self-determination, and personal autonomy.[6] Jurisdictions where euthanasia is legal include the Netherlands, Canada,[7]Colombia, Belgium, and Luxembourg.

Like other terms borrowed from history, "euthanasia" has had different meanings depending on usage. The first apparent usage of the term "euthanasia" belongs to the historian Suetonius, who described how the Emperor Augustus, "dying quickly and without suffering in the arms of his wife, Livia, experienced the 'euthanasia' he had wished for."[8] The word "euthanasia" was first used in a medical context by Francis Bacon in the 17th century, to refer to an easy, painless, happy death, during which it was a "physician's responsibility to alleviate the 'physical sufferings' of the body." Bacon referred to an "outward euthanasia"the term "outward" he used to distinguish from a spiritual conceptthe euthanasia "which regards the preparation of the soul."[9]

In current usage, euthanasia has been defined as the "painless inducement of a quick death".[10] However, it is argued that this approach fails to properly define euthanasia, as it leaves open a number of possible actions which would meet the requirements of the definition, but would not be seen as euthanasia. In particular, these include situations where a person kills another, painlessly, but for no reason beyond that of personal gain; or accidental deaths that are quick and painless, but not intentional.[11][12]

Another approach incorporates the notion of suffering into the definition.[11] The definition offered by the Oxford English Dictionary incorporates suffering as a necessary condition, with "the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma",[13] This approach is included in Marvin Khol and Paul Kurtz's definition of it as "a mode or act of inducing or permitting death painlessly as a relief from suffering".[14] Counterexamples can be given: such definitions may encompass killing a person suffering from an incurable disease for personal gain (such as to claim an inheritance), and commentators such as Tom Beauchamp and Arnold Davidson have argued that doing so would constitute "murder simpliciter" rather than euthanasia.[11]

The third element incorporated into many definitions is that of intentionality the death must be intended, rather than being accidental, and the intent of the action must be a "merciful death".[11] Michael Wreen argued that "the principal thing that distinguishes euthanasia from intentional killing simpliciter is the agent's motive: it must be a good motive insofar as the good of the person killed is concerned."[15] Similarly, Heather Draper speaks to the importance of motive, arguing that "the motive forms a crucial part of arguments for euthanasia, because it must be in the best interests of the person on the receiving end."[12] Definitions such as that offered by the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics take this path, where euthanasia is defined as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering."[2] Beauchamp and Davidson also highlight Baruch Brody's "an act of euthanasia is one in which one person... (A) kills another person (B) for the benefit of the second person, who actually does benefit from being killed".[16]

Draper argued that any definition of euthanasia must incorporate four elements: an agent and a subject; an intention; a causal proximity, such that the actions of the agent lead to the outcome; and an outcome. Based on this, she offered a definition incorporating those elements, stating that euthanasia "must be defined as death that results from the intention of one person to kill another person, using the most gentle and painless means possible, that is motivated solely by the best interests of the person who dies."[17] Prior to Draper, Beauchamp and Davidson had also offered a definition that includes these elements. Their definition specifically discounts fetuses in order to distinguish between abortions and euthanasia:[18]

"In summary, we have argued... that the death of a human being, A, is an instance of euthanasia if and only if (1) A's death is intended by at least one other human being, B, where B is either the cause of death or a causally relevant feature of the event resulting in death (whether by action or by omission); (2) there is either sufficient current evidence for B to believe that A is acutely suffering or irreversibly comatose, or there is sufficient current evidence related to A's present condition such that one or more known causal laws supports B's belief that A will be in a condition of acute suffering or irreversible comatoseness; (3) (a) B's primary reason for intending A's death is cessation of A's (actual or predicted future) suffering or irreversible comatoseness, where B does not intend A's death for a different primary reason, though there may be other relevant reasons, and (b) there is sufficient current evidence for either A or B that causal means to A's death will not produce any more suffering than would be produced for A if B were not to intervene; (4) the causal means to the event of A's death are chosen by A or B to be as painless as possible, unless either A or B has an overriding reason for a more painful causal means, where the reason for choosing the latter causal means does not conflict with the evidence in 3b; (5) A is a nonfetal organism."[19]

Wreen, in part responding to Beauchamp and Davidson, offered a six-part definition:

"Person A committed an act of euthanasia if and only if (1) A killed B or let her die; (2) A intended to kill B; (3) the intention specified in (2) was at least partial cause of the action specified in (1); (4) the causal journey from the intention specified in (2) to the action specified in (1) is more or less in accordance with A's plan of action; (5) A's killing of B is a voluntary action; (6) the motive for the action specified in (1), the motive standing behind the intention specified in (2), is the good of the person killed."[20]

Wreen also considered a seventh requirement: "(7) The good specified in (6) is, or at least includes, the avoidance of evil", although as Wreen noted in the paper, he was not convinced that the restriction was required.[21]

In discussing his definition, Wreen noted the difficulty of justifying euthanasia when faced with the notion of the subject's "right to life". In response, Wreen argued that euthanasia has to be voluntary, and that "involuntary euthanasia is, as such, a great wrong".[21] Other commentators incorporate consent more directly into their definitions. For example, in a discussion of euthanasia presented in 2003 by the European Association of Palliative Care (EPAC) Ethics Task Force, the authors offered: "Medicalized killing of a person without the person's consent, whether nonvoluntary (where the person in unable to consent) or involuntary (against the person's will) is not euthanasia: it is murder. Hence, euthanasia can be voluntary only."[22] Although the EPAC Ethics Task Force argued that both non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia could not be included in the definition of euthanasia, there is discussion in the literature about excluding one but not the other.[21]

Euthanasia may be classified according to whether a person gives informed consent into three types: voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary.[23][24]

There is a debate within the medical and bioethics literature about whether or not the non-voluntary (and by extension, involuntary) killing of patients can be regarded as euthanasia, irrespective of intent or the patient's circumstances. In the definitions offered by Beauchamp and Davidson and, later, by Wreen, consent on the part of the patient was not considered as one of their criteria, although it may have been required to justify euthanasia.[11][25] However, others see consent as essential.

Euthanasia conducted with the consent of the patient is termed voluntary euthanasia. Active voluntary euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Passive voluntary euthanasia is legal throughout the U.S. per Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. When the patient brings about his or her own death with the assistance of a physician, the term assisted suicide is often used instead. Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland and the U.S. states of California, Oregon, Washington, Montana and Vermont.

Euthanasia conducted when the consent of the patient is unavailable is termed non-voluntary euthanasia. Examples include child euthanasia, which is illegal worldwide but decriminalised under certain specific circumstances in the Netherlands under the Groningen Protocol.

Euthanasia conducted against the will of the patient is termed involuntary euthanasia.

Voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia can all be further divided into passive or active variants.[26] Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments, such as antibiotics, necessary for the continuance of life.[2] Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces, such as administering a lethal injection, to kill and is the most controversial means. A number of authors consider these terms to be misleading and unhelpful.[2]

According to the historian N. D. A. Kemp, the origin of the contemporary debate on euthanasia started in 1870.[27] Euthanasia is known to have been debated and practiced long before that date. Euthanasia was practiced in Ancient Greece and Rome: for example, hemlock was employed as a means of hastening death on the island of Kea, a technique also employed in Marseilles. Euthanasia, in the sense of the deliberate hastening of a person's death, was supported by Socrates, Plato and Seneca the Elder in the ancient world, although Hippocrates appears to have spoken against the practice, writing "I will not prescribe a deadly drug to please someone, nor give advice that may cause his death" (noting there is some debate in the literature about whether or not this was intended to encompass euthanasia).[28][29][30]

The term "euthanasia" in the earlier sense of supporting someone as they died was used for the first time by Francis Bacon (1561-1626). In his work, Euthanasia medica, he chose this ancient Greek word and, in doing so, distinguished between euthanasia interior, the preparation of the soul for death, and euthanasia exterior, which was intended to make the end of life easier and painless, in exceptional circumstances by shortening life. That the ancient meaning of an easy death came to the fore again in the early modern period can be seen from its definition in the 18th century Zedlers Universallexikon:

The concept of euthanasia in the sense of alleviating the process of death goes back to the medical historian, Karl Friedrich Heinrich Marx, who drew on Bacon's philosophical ideas. According to Marx, a doctor had a moral duty to ease the suffering of death through encouragement, support and mitigation using medication. Such an "alleviation of death" reflected the contemporary Zeitgeist, but was brought into the medical canon of responsibility for the first time by Marx. Marx also stressed the distinction between the theological care of the soul of sick people from the physical care and medical treatment by doctors.[32][33]

Euthanasia in its modern sense has always been strongly opposed in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Thomas Aquinas opposed both and argued that the practice of euthanasia contradicted our natural human instincts of survival,[34] as did Francois Ranchin (15651641), a French physician and professor of medicine, and Michael Boudewijns (16011681), a physician and teacher.[29]:208[35] Other voices argued for euthanasia, such as John Donne in 1624,[36] and euthanasia continued to be practised. In 1678, the publication of Caspar Questel's De pulvinari morientibus non subtrahend, ("On the pillow of which the dying should not be deprived"), initiated debate on the topic. Questel described various customs which were employed at the time to hasten the death of the dying, (including the sudden removal of a pillow, which was believed to accelerate death), and argued against their use, as doing so was "against the laws of God and Nature".[29]:209211 This view was shared by many who followed, including Philipp Jakob Spener, Veit Riedlin and Johann Georg Krnitz.[29]:211 Despite opposition, euthanasia continued to be practised, involving techniques such as bleeding, suffocation, and removing people from their beds to be placed on the cold ground.[29]:211214

Suicide and euthanasia became more accepted during the Age of Enlightenment.[35]Thomas More wrote of euthanasia in Utopia, although it is not clear if More was intending to endorse the practice.[29]:208209 Other cultures have taken different approaches: for example, in Japan suicide has not traditionally been viewed as a sin, as it is used in cases of honor, and accordingly, the perceptions of euthanasia are different from those in other parts of the world.[37]

In the mid-1800s, the use of morphine to treat "the pains of death" emerged, with John Warren recommending its use in 1848. A similar use of chloroform was revealed by Joseph Bullar in 1866. However, in neither case was it recommended that the use should be to hasten death. In 1870 Samuel Williams, a schoolteacher, initiated the contemporary euthanasia debate through a speech given at the Birmingham Speculative Club in England, which was subsequently published in a one-off publication entitled Essays of the Birmingham Speculative Club, the collected works of a number of members of an amateur philosophical society.[38]:794 Williams' proposal was to use chloroform to deliberately hasten the death of terminally ill patients:

That in all cases of hopeless and painful illness, it should be the recognized duty of the medical attendant, whenever so desired by the patient, to administer choloroform or such other anaesthetic as may by-and-bye supersede chloroform so as to destroy consciousness at once, and put the sufferer to a quick and painless death; all needful precautions being adopted to prevent any possible abuse of such duty; and means being taken to establish, beyond the possibility of doubt or question, that the remedy was applied at the express wish of the patient.

The essay was favourably reviewed in The Saturday Review, but an editorial against the essay appeared in The Spectator.[27] From there it proved to be influential, and other writers came out in support of such views: Lionel Tollemache wrote in favour of euthanasia, as did Annie Besant, the essayist and reformer who later became involved with the National Secular Society, considering it a duty to society to "die voluntarily and painlessly" when one reaches the point of becoming a 'burden'.[27][39]Popular Science analyzed the issue in May 1873, assessing both sides of the argument.[40] Kemp notes that at the time, medical doctors did not participate in the discussion; it was "essentially a philosophical enterprise... tied inextricably to a number of objections to the Christian doctrine of the sanctity of human life".[27]

The rise of the euthanasia movement in the United States coincided with the so-called Gilded Age, a time of social and technological change that encompassed an "individualistic conservatism that praised laissez-faire economics, scientific method, and rationalism", along with major depressions, industrialisation and conflict between corporations and labour unions.[38]:794 It was also the period in which the modern hospital system was developed, which has been seen as a factor in the emergence of the euthanasia debate.[41]

Robert Ingersoll argued for euthanasia, stating in 1894 that where someone is suffering from a terminal illness, such as terminal cancer, they should have a right to end their pain through suicide. Felix Adler offered a similar approach, although, unlike Ingersoll, Adler did not reject religion. In fact, he argued from an Ethical Culture framework. In 1891, Alder argued that those suffering from overwhelming pain should have the right to commit suicide, and, furthermore, that it should be permissible for a doctor to assist thus making Adler the first "prominent American" to argue for suicide in cases where people were suffering from chronic illness.[42] Both Ingersoll and Adler argued for voluntary euthanasia of adults suffering from terminal ailments.[42] Dowbiggin argues that by breaking down prior moral objections to euthanasia and suicide, Ingersoll and Adler enabled others to stretch the definition of euthanasia.[43]

The first attempt to legalise euthanasia took place in the United States, when Henry Hunt introduced legislation into the General Assembly of Ohio in 1906.[44]:614 Hunt did so at the behest of Anna Hall, a wealthy heiress who was a major figure in the euthanasia movement during the early 20th century in the United States. Hall had watched her mother die after an extended battle with liver cancer, and had dedicated herself to ensuring that others would not have to endure the same suffering. Towards this end she engaged in an extensive letter writing campaign, recruited Lurana Sheldon and Maud Ballington Booth, and organised a debate on euthanasia at the annual meeting of the American Humane Association in 1905 described by Jacob Appel as the first significant public debate on the topic in the 20th century.[44]:614616

Hunt's bill called for the administration of an anesthetic to bring about a patient's death, so long as the person is of lawful age and sound mind, and was suffering from a fatal injury, an irrevocable illness, or great physical pain. It also required that the case be heard by a physician, required informed consent in front of three witnesses, and required the attendance of three physicians who had to agree that the patient's recovery was impossible. A motion to reject the bill outright was voted down, but the bill failed to pass, 79 to 23.[38]:796[44]:618619

Along with the Ohio euthanasia proposal, in 1906 Assemblyman Ross Gregory introduced a proposal to permit euthanasia to the Iowa legislature. However, the Iowa legislation was far broader in scope than that offered in Ohio. It allowed for the death of any person of at least ten years of age who suffered from an ailment that would prove fatal and cause extreme pain, should they be of sound mind and express a desire to artificially hasten their death. In addition, it allowed for infants to be euthanised if they were sufficiently deformed, and permitted guardians to request euthanasia on behalf of their wards. The proposed legislation also imposed penalties on physicians who refused to perform euthanasia when requested: a 612 month prison term and a fine of between $200 and $1000. The proposal proved to be controversial.[44]:619621 It engendered considerable debate and failed to pass, having been withdrawn from consideration after being passed to the Committee on Public Health.[44]:623

After 1906 the euthanasia debate reduced in intensity, resurfacing periodically but not returning to the same level of debate until the 1930s in the United Kingdom.[38]:796

The Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Society was founded in 1935 by Charles Killick Millard (now called Dignity in Dying). The movement campaigned for the legalisation of euthanasia in Great Britain.

In January 1936, King George V was given a fatal dose of morphine and cocaine in order to hasten his death. At the time he was suffering from cardio-respiratory failure, and the decision to end his life was made by his physician, Lord Dawson.[45] Although this event was kept a secret for over 50 years, the death of George V coincided with proposed legislation in the House of Lords to legalise euthanasia. The legislation came through the British Volunteer Euthanasia Legalisation Society.[46]

Euthanasia opponent Ian Dowbiggin argues that the early membership of the Euthanasia Society of America (ESA) reflected how many perceived euthanasia at the time, often seeing it as a eugenics matter rather than an issue concerning individual rights.[42] Dowbiggin argues that not every eugenist joined the ESA "solely for eugenic reasons", but he postulates that there were clear ideological connections between the eugenics and euthanasia movements.[42]

A 24 July 1939 killing of a severely disabled infant in Nazi Germany was described in a BBC "Genocide Under the Nazis Timeline" as the first "state-sponsored euthanasia".[47] Parties that consented to the killing included Hitler's office, the parents, and the Reich Committee for the Scientific Registration of Serious and Congenitally Based Illnesses.[47]The Telegraph noted that the killing of the disabled infantwhose name was Gerhard Kretschmar, born blind, with missing limbs, subject to convulsions, and reportedly "an idiot" provided "the rationale for a secret Nazi decree that led to 'mercy killings' of almost 300,000 mentally and physically handicapped people".[48] While Kretchmar's killing received parental consent, most of the 5,000 to 8,000 children killed afterwards were forcibly taken from their parents.[47][48]

The "euthanasia campaign" of mass murder gathered momentum on 14 January 1940 when the "handicapped" were killed with gas vans and killing centres, eventually leading to the deaths of 70,000 adult Germans.[49] Professor Robert Jay Lifton, author of The Nazi Doctors and a leading authority on the T4 program, contrasts this program with what he considers to be a genuine euthanasia. He explains that the Nazi version of "euthanasia" was based on the work of Adolf Jost, who published The Right to Death (Das Recht auf den Tod) in 1895. Lifton writes: "Jost argued that control over the death of the individual must ultimately belong to the social organism, the state. This concept is in direct opposition to the Anglo-American concept of euthanasia, which emphasizes the individual's 'right to die' or 'right to death' or 'right to his or her own death,' as the ultimate human claim. In contrast, Jost was pointing to the state's right to kill.... Ultimately the argument was biological: 'The rights to death [are] the key to the fitness of life.' The state must own deathmust killin order to keep the social organism alive and healthy."[50]

In modern terms, the use of "euthanasia" in the context of Action T4 is seen to be a euphemism to disguise a program of genocide, in which people were killed on the grounds of "disabilities, religious beliefs, and discordant individual values".[51] Compared to the discussions of euthanasia that emerged post-war, the Nazi program may have been worded in terms that appear similar to the modern use of "euthanasia", but there was no "mercy" and the patients were not necessarily terminally ill.[51] Despite these differences, historian and euthanasia opponent Ian Dowbiggin writes that "the origins of Nazi euthanasia, like those of the American euthanasia movement, predate the Third Reich and were intertwined with the history of eugenics and Social Darwinism, and with efforts to discredit traditional morality and ethics."[42]:65

On January 6, 1949, the Euthanasia Society of America presented to the New York State Legislature a petition to legalize euthanasia, signed by 379 leading Protestant and Jewish ministers, the largest group of religious leaders ever to have taken this stance. A similar petition had been sent to the New York State Legislature in 1947, signed by approximately 1,000 New York physicians. Catholic religious leaders criticized the petition, saying that such a bill would "legalize a suicide-murder pact" and a "rationalization of the fifth commandment of God, 'Though Shalt Not Kill.'"[52] The Right Reverend Robert E. McCormick stated that

"The ultimate object of the Euthanasia Society is based on the Totalitarian principle that the state is supreme and that the individual does not have the right to live if his continuance in life is a burden or hindrance to the state. The Nazis followed this principle and compulsory Euthanasia was practiced as a part of their program during the recent war. We American citizens of New York State must ask ourselves this question: 'Are we going to finish Hitler's job?'"[52]

The petition brought tensions between the American Euthanasia Society and the Catholic Church to a head that contributed to a climate of anti-Catholic sentiment generally regarding issues such as birth control, eugenics, and population control.[42]

The petition did not lead to a law.

Historically, the euthanasia debate has tended to focus on a number of key concerns. According to euthanasia opponent Ezekiel Emanuel, proponents of euthanasia have presented four main arguments: a) that people have a right to self-determination, and thus should be allowed to choose their own fate; b) assisting a subject to die might be a better choice than requiring that they continue to suffer; c) the distinction between passive euthanasia, which is often permitted, and active euthanasia, which is not substantive (or that the underlying principlethe doctrine of double effectis unreasonable or unsound); and d) permitting euthanasia will not necessarily lead to unacceptable consequences. Pro-euthanasia activists often point to countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, and states like Oregon, where euthanasia has been legalized, to argue that it is mostly unproblematic.

Similarly, Emanuel argues that there are four major arguments presented by opponents of euthanasia: a) not all deaths are painful; b) alternatives, such as cessation of active treatment, combined with the use of effective pain relief, are available; c) the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is morally significant; and d) legalising euthanasia will place society on a slippery slope,[53] which will lead to unacceptable consequences.[38]:7978 In fact, in Oregon, in 2013, pain wasn't one of the top five reasons people sought euthanasia. Top reasons were a loss of dignity, and a fear of burdening others.[54]

In the United States in 2013, 47% nationwide supported doctor-assisted suicide. This included 32% of Latinos, 29% of African-Americans, and almost nobody with disabilities.[54]

West's Encyclopedia of American Law states that "a 'mercy killing' or euthanasia is generally considered to be a criminal homicide"[55] and is normally used as a synonym of homicide committed at a request made by the patient.[56]

The judicial sense of the term "homicide" includes any intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, even to relieve intractable suffering.[56][57][58] Not all homicide is unlawful.[59] Two designations of homicide that carry no criminal punishment are justifiable and excusable homicide.[59] In most countries this is not the status of euthanasia. The term "euthanasia" is usually confined to the active variety; the University of Washington website states that "euthanasia generally means that the physician would act directly, for instance by giving a lethal injection, to end the patient's life".[60]Physician-assisted suicide is thus not classified as euthanasia by the US State of Oregon, where it is legal under the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, and despite its name, it is not legally classified as suicide either.[61] Unlike physician-assisted suicide, withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatments with patient consent (voluntary) is almost unanimously considered, at least in the United States, to be legal.[62] The use of pain medication in order to relieve suffering, even if it hastens death, has been held as legal in several court decisions.[60]

Some governments around the world have legalized voluntary euthanasia but most commonly it is still considered to be criminal homicide. In the Netherlands and Belgium, where euthanasia has been legalized, it still remains homicide although it is not prosecuted and not punishable if the perpetrator (the doctor) meets certain legal conditions.[63][64][65][66]

A survey in the United States of more than 10,000 physicians came to the result that approximately 16% of physicians would ever consider halting life-sustaining therapy because the family demands it, even if they believed that it was premature. Approximately 55% would not, and for the remaining 29%, it would depend on circumstances.[67]

This study also stated that approximately 46% of physicians agree that physician-assisted suicide should be allowed in some cases; 41% do not, and the remaining 14% think it depends.[67]

In the United Kingdom, the pro-assisted dying group Dignity in Dying cite conflicting research on attitudes by doctors to assisted dying: with a 2009 Palliative Medicine-published survey showing 64% support (to 34% oppose) for assisted dying in cases where a patient has an incurable and painful disease, while 49% of doctors in a study published in BMC Medical Ethics oppose changing the law on assisted dying to 39% in favour.[68]

Euthanasia – Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted: June 19, 2016 at 3:51 am

Many people have diseases that cause pain, or that make them suffer. Ending the lives of these people to take away their suffering is called euthanasia. This is sometimes regarded as different from assisted suicide, which is where someone helps another person to kill themselves. It is also different to murder, where the intent is not to end the person's suffering, but to kill them for the killer's own ends. Euthanasia can be voluntary, where the person who dies specifically asks for help in ending their life. There are cases, where the person is not able to say that they do, or do not, wish to die. These cases are usually called non-voluntary euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia, where someone is killed against their will, is generally regarded as murder.

Euthanasia is illegal in most countries. It is permitted in a small number of countries, such as the Netherlands and Belgium. Where it is permitted it is very tightly regulated, and it is only permitted in cases where the patient is terminally ill.

When discussing euthanasia, euthanasia is generally separated into active and passive euthanasia, and voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Many people see important differences between these different types of euthanasia, so that they can accept some types but not others.

Passive euthanasia can be described as "letting die". When passive euthanasia occurs, a terminally ill person is allowed to die, even though treatment could have allowed them to live longer. Examples of passive euthanasia include removing life support from a patient, (such as a ventilator which is being used to keep the person alive), or not providing a patient with food or water. Active euthanasia, on the other hand, involves deliberately acting to end a person's life. This may occur through giving them an injection of a drug that will kill them, or by giving them pills that will result in their death.[1]

Some people see passive euthanasia as a more acceptable choice, because it does not involve a deliberate act to kill. However, others argue that once someone has decided to allow another person to die, they should make it as fast and as painless as possible, and act to bring about their death.[2]

If someone asks to be allowed to die, or if they ask to be killed, then they have asked for voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is often seen as the best by people who believe in euthanasia, because it is clear that the person wants to die. If the person can not say that they wish to die, but people think that they would ask to die if they could, then it is non-voluntary euthanasia. Non-voluntary euthanasia is sometimes a choice for people who are in a coma or who are very young, as they can not say what they want to do. Involuntary euthansia is when someone is killed even though they asked not to die, or when they could have asked to die but did not.[3] Many people do not think that this is euthanasia. Instead they think that it is murder.[4]

The types of euthanasia, active/passive and voluntary/non-voluntary/involuntary can be put together. If someone asks to die, and another person gives them an injection that will kill them, then it is active voluntary euthanasia. But if someone is in a coma and is only alive because of a ventilator, and the doctors turn the ventilator off and they die, then it would be passive non-voluntary euthanasia.[5]

Some people believe that euthanasia should be allowed, and some people think that it should not be allowed.

Even if euthanasia is not a bad thing, some people believe that allowing euthanasia will result in bad things happening. If euthanasia is allowed to happen for people asking to die, people might then think that it is ok to allow euthanasia for people who are very sick but are not able to ask to die. And if that was allowed, then maybe they would allow euthanasia for people who are very sick and will not recover, but do not want to die. This is called the "slippery slope" argument.[6]

People who believe in the slippery slope argument point to times when this seems to have happened. In Germany, Adolf Hitler allowed disabled children to be killed, and called it euthanasia. People today agree that what Hitler did was very wrong, but some people think that if euthanasia was allowed it would lead to similar things happening again. So they think that it would be too big a risk to allow euthanasia at all.[6]

Other people say that this is wrong. There is a big difference between killing someone who is very sick, in pain, and asks to die, and killing a child just because they have a disability. They say that it is not true that allowing euthanasia will lead to bad things. They also say that what Hitler did was not euthanasia, and did not happen because they allowed euthanasia.[6]

Palliative care is when people who are ill are given special care to make them more comfortable. In regard to euthanasia, palliative care can be given to patients who are dying. It may include hospice care, when the patient is sent to a special hospital that is just for people who are dying, and which is meant to make their death as comfortable as possible. Palliative care can involve pain relief and help for the patient and family to come to terms with death. In some cases, doctors will give patient drugs which make them stay asleep, so that they will not feel pain.[7][8]

Palliative care is not perfect, and so it is not always seen as a replacement for euthanasia. There is still some pain, and there can be other side-effects, where the patient can still feel very sick. Palliative care is not available for all people, and not all people who wish to die through euthanasia are sick so that they will die soon some people have healthy bodies, but they are suffering in other ways, and palliative care will not always help them.[6]

The principle of double effect was first described by Thomas Aquinas over 700 years ago. It says that it is sometimes ok to do something even if a bad thing will happen if a good thing also happens, and if it was the good thing that they wanted.[9] Aquinas used the example of self defense: sometimes when they are attacked a person will kill the attacker, but the death of the attacker was not what the person was trying to do. They only wanted to protect themselves. So even though killing someone is bad, what they wanted to do protect themselves was not.[10]

Some people say that doctors may treat a person in order to reduce the pain that they are suffering, but that as a result the person will die sooner. If the doctor gives the treatment in order to help the patient die, then it is euthanasia. But if the doctor gives the treatment in order to stop the pain, and does not intend for the patient to die, then it may not be euthanasia, even if the doctor knew that the treatment would kill the patient.[10]

Suicide is when a person kills themselves. Sometimes when a person is very sick they need help to die, and if someone helps them to kill themselves, it is called assisted suicide.[11] In some countries people are allowed to help someone to kill themselves, so long as they do not kill the person,[12] and it can be seen as a more acceptable option because it must be the person's own decision.[11] Because a second person did not kill the other person, it is not always considered to be euthanasia, as some people see an important difference between someone killing themselves and someone killing another person, and they believe that euthanasia is only when a second person kills the first.[6]

View original post here:

Euthanasia - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted in Euthanasia | Comments Off

Assisted Suicide – Information on right-to-die and …

Posted: June 17, 2016 at 5:03 am

For the rights of the terminal, or hopelessly physically ill, competent adult http://www.assistedsuicide.org

Controversy in Oregon about the best term to describe how a doctor helps a terminally ill person to die under the Oregon Death With Dignity Act (1994) set me thinking about all the terms we use to describe ways of dying and death. The row in Oregon is between people on the choice side who abhor words like suicide, euthanasia, and Hemlock, while on the anti-choice side they want the foregoing words to be clearly spelled out because, they think, it helps their opposing case. Read more ...

In a spirit of compassion for all, this manifesto proclaims that every competent adult has the incontestable right to humankinds ultimate civil and personal liberty -- the right to die in a manner and at a time of their own choosing. Whereas modern medicine has brought great benefits to humanity, it cannot entirely solve the pain and distress of the dying process. Read more ...

Controversial in death as in life, the Hemlock Society USA as a name died suddenly on June 13, 2003, in a boardroom in Denver, Colorado. It was 23 years old. Public relations experts and political strategists leaning heavily on focus groups were on hand to usher in the death knell. Months of agonizing debate had preceded the decision because no one could think of a better name!

Born in 1980 in my garage in Santa Monica, California, Hemlock went on to... Read more ...

When we look at what the right-to-die movement has achieved, against what it has wished to do, an honest person would agree that there is still a long, long way to go. The first signs of organized activity on this issue came in the late 1930s in Britain, but nothing really happened until the 1970s when the public -- the non-medical world -- woke up with a shock to the fact that we often die differently nowadays compared to our ancestors. Read more ...

Assisted suicide laws around the world are clear in some nations but unclear if they exist at all in others. Just because a country has not defined its criminal code on this specific action does not mean all assisters will go free. It is a complicated state of affairs. A great many people instinctively feel that suicide and assisted suicide are such individual acts of freedom and free will that they assume there are no legal prohibitions. This fallacy has brought many people into trouble with the law. Read more ...

Visit the Assisted-Dying Blog maintained by Derek Humphry Share your views with the rest of the world on ERGOs weblog.

Join ERGO - Become a Member Help ERGO in its work to achieve choices in dying.

Join the International Right-To-Die Mailing List Exchange news and views on a wide range of right-to-die topics. (Only subscribe if you in principle support the right to choose to die when physical suffering is unbearable).

Visit link:

Assisted Suicide - Information on right-to-die and ...

Posted in Euthanasia | Comments Off

Patients Rights Council

Posted: at 5:03 am

SUPPORT THE PATIENTS RIGHTS COUNCILLatest additions to web site: 6/7/16.. Site Map ..

Death Doctor to Charge $2000 for Suicide Prescription(National Review June 5, 2016)Lonnny Shavelson is or was a part time emergency room physician and photo journalist. Now, hes going to be a death doctor for pay. [H]e once witnessed what can only be described as a murder of a disabled man by a Hemlock Society suicide assister and did nothing about it as he reported beginning at page 92 of his book. More on California.

Scroll down for more of the latest developments and featured articles ..List of states where bills have been proposed this year: 2016 Doctor-Prescribed Suicide Bills Proposed

In addition to bills that had been pending in New Jersey, doctor-prescribed suicide bills were proposed in 2015 in more than twenty states. For a listing of those bills, see 2015 Doctor-Prescribed Bills Proposed. For all doctor-prescribed suicide bills that have been proposed since 1994, see Attempts to Legalize. ..

Scroll down for other Recent Developments, and for Featured Articles. For additional information, see Site Map.

The Latest PRC Update (2016 Volume 30, No. 2,):

Who will speak for you? Imagine you are in an accident tomorrow and so seriously injured that you arent able to communicate about your health care wishes for several weeks. Who would make health care decisions for you during that time? Do you need an advance directive?

To obtain a durable power of attorney for health care for the state in which you are a resident, call the Patients Rights Council (800-958-5678 or 740-282-3810) between 8:30am and 4:30pm (eastern time). .

Recent Major Developments

Brain scans reveal hidden consciousness in patients(AP Central Ohio, The Source May 26, 2016) A standard brain scanning technique is showing promise for helping doctors distinguish between patients in a vegetative state and those with hidden signs of consciousness.The researchers checked the patient status again a year later. They found that 8 of the 11 vegetative patients who had scored above the cutoff, which had been associated with minimal consciousness, had in fact recovered consciousness.

Savinos end-of-life bills: Cruel choices, deadly mischief(Staten Island Advance May 16, 2016) The latest proposed doctor-prescribed suicide legislation is titled the Medical Aid in Dying Act. More on New York and text of proposed bill [Note: As with SB 3685, one of New Yorks previous bills, this latest bill (A10059) would not require that a person be a resident of New York to qualify for doctor-prescribed suicide. Therefore, if passed, New York could easily become a national suicide destination.]

Cancer breakthrough: Duke clinical trial destroys SC womans brain tumor(WNCN television CBS May 16, 2016) The FDA is calling a clinical trial that killed a cancerous brain tumor (Stage 4 Glioblastoma) a medical breakthrough. Stephanie Lipscomb, now a nurse has now been cancer free for 4 years and considers herself cured. Dozens of patients responded positively to the trial and because of the success with Stephanie, the FDA has deemed the trial a medical breakthrough. [Note: This was the same type of cancer that Brittany Maynard had.]

UNICEF Canada lobbies lawmakers to make physician-assisted dying (which includes doctor-prescribed suicide and euthanasia by lethal injection) available to children.In its May 11, 2016 brief, UNICEF states,In our view, this would be consistent with a cautious and balanced child rights-based approach to the question of medically-assisted death, having regard to the lessons learned in the Netherlands and Belgium. It further notes that in 2014, Belgium amended its legislation and became the first country in the world to remove any age restrictions on physician-assisted death. More on Canada

Netherlands sees sharp increase in people choosing euthanasia due to mental health problems'(Telegraph May 11, 2016) The Netherlands has seen a sharp increase in the number of people choosing to end their own lives due to mental health problems such as trauma caused by sexual abuse. Whereas just two people had themselves euthanised in the country in 2010 due to insufferable mental illness, 56 people did so last year, a trend which sparked concern among ethicists. More on Holland Assisted Suicide MDs Would Never be Convicted of Fraud(National Review May 9, 2016) The Justice Department has convicted two doctors for falsely diagnosing patients as terminal to qualify for hospice care.The motive there was clearly money. But this same kind of false terminal diagnosis could also happen with assisted suicide as a matter of ideologyIt already has. More on Terminal Illness

Medical errors may kill 250,000 a year, but problem not being tracked(Modern Healthcare May 4, 2016) A study published in the BMJ found that medical mistakes in the U.S. trailed heart disease and cancer. More on Medical Errors

Chambers promises to keep pushing for aid-in-dying law (Brown County Democrat April 4, 2016) Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha filed a motion Monday to pull his aid-in-dying bill out of a legislative committee where it remains stuck. The motion won only nine of the needed 25 votes to bring the bill to the floor for debate. More on Nebraska

Remove organs from euthanasia patients while theyre still ALIVE' (Daily Mail March 31, 2016) Those who want to be killed should be sedated in hospital then allowed to die after the removal of their vital organs, according to the proposal published by a British-based medical ethics journal. Using organs for transplant surgery from patients who have been helped to die is allowed in Belgium and Holland.[A]n article in the Journal of Medical Ethics yesterday advocated heart-beating organ donation euthanasia. This would involve an operation in which organs would be taken from still-living patients who have given permission. More on Organ Donation and Organ Transplant

Oregon releases its 2016 death with dignity stats(BioEdge February 20, 2016) Oregon is the model for assisted suicide legislation throughout the United States, so its annual Death with Dignity report for 2015 deserves close scrutiny.For about 80% of the 132 deaths there is no information on how long it took or whether there were difficulties. More on Oregon

Featured Articles Hospital(Townhall April 21, 2016) I get excellent medical care here. But as a consumer reporter, I have to say, the hospitals customer service stinks.Customer service is sclerotic because hospitals are largely socialistic bureaucracies. Instead of answering to consumers, which forces businesses to be nimble, hospitals report to government, lawyers and insurance companies. More on government Health Care Reform

Are You a Hospital Inpatient or Outpatient? If you have Medicare Ask!(Medicare.gov) Did you know that even if you stay in a hospital overnight, you might still be considered an outpatient? Your hospital status affects how much you pay for hospital services and may also affect whether Medicare will cover care you get in a skilled nursing facility following your hospital stay. More on Medicare

Weak Oversight Lets Dangerous Nurses Work in New York(ProPublica April 7, 2016) New York lags behind other states in vetting nurses and moving to discipline those who are incompetent or commit crimes. Often, even those disciplined by other states or New York agencies hold clear licenses. More on New York More on Nurses

Assisted suicid
e: An idea that loses appeal as it becomes tangible (Star Tribune March 15, 2016) SF 1880 is sponsored by a group of DFL legislators, led by Sen. Chris Eaton of Brooklyn Center, who claims that assisted suicide enjoys overwhelming support from the American public. This is overconfidence. The truth about assisted suicide is that it 1) takes time to understand and that it 2) turns political stereotypes on their head But then something remarkable happened. The people of Massachusetts began to understand the issue. More on Minnesota

Dutch documentary awakens euthanasia debate about wider rules (Dutch News February 29, 2016) A recent Dutch television documentary on euthanasia in which a 68 year-old woman suffering from semantic dementia was given a lethal injection may well herald a turning point in what many consider to be an increasingly broader and unacceptable interpretation of the rules. More on Holland

Where the prescription for autism can be death (Washington Post February 24, 2016) Thus did a man in his 30s whose only diagnosis was autism become one of 110 people to be euthanized for mental disorders in the Netherlands between 2011 and 2014. Thats the rough equivalent of 2,000 people in the United States. More on Holland

Teen Survived Kalamazoo Shooting after Being Pronounced Brain Dead(ABC7 February 23, 2016) The hospital was in the process of preparing her organs for donation when the girl squeezed her mothers hand. More on Organ Donation

Elder Guardianship: A Shameful Racket'(Diane Dimond February 20, 2016) Betty Winstanley is a well-spoken, elegant and wealthy 94-year-old widow. And as she told me from her room at the Masonic Village retirement facility Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, I feel like I am in prison. My life is a living hell. Welcome to Americas twisted world of court-appointed guardians for the elderly.

Assisted Suicide Study Questions Its Use for Mentally Ill (New York Times February 10, 2016) [I]n more than half of the approved cases, people declined treatment that could have helped, and many cited loneliness as an important reason for wanting to die. People who got assistance to die often sought help from doctors they had not seen before, and many used what the study called a mobile end-of-life clinic a nurse and a doctor, funded by a local euthanasia advocacy organization. More on Holland

RNs and CNAs Work Fewer Hours in Nursing Facilities that Serve Predominately Ethnic and Racial Minorities(Center for Medicare Advocacy January 27, 2016) A December 2015 Health Affairs study of freestanding Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) found that registered nurses (RNs) were less likely to work at nursing homes with high concentrations of racial and ethnic minorities.Racial and ethnic minority nursing home residents have not been receiving the same quality of skilled care as white patients and the consequences of this disparity have been significant. More on Medicare More on Minorities and the Poor

A bit of irony or tragedy in Canada?(January 2016) Although Canadas new health minister has acknowledged that there is evidence that only 15 percent of Canadians have access to high quality pain control, parliament has been told that special traveling teams should be available to deliver physician-assisted death to the countrys remote regions to guarantee that patients can have their lives ended.

The sole survivor: Fort Lee woman beats the deadliest form of brain cancer(NorthJersey.com December 13, 2015) Nearly a decade after learning she had only three months to live, Sandy Hillburn grabbed a taxi last Sunday to LaGuardia Airport for one of her regular business trips to North Carolina.

The vulnerable will be the victims(USA Today October 20, 2015) California required legislative sleight of hand to pass physician-assisted suicide in a special legislative session that bypassed committee votesOregon reports that pain doesnt even make the top five reasons people seek doctor-assisted suicide. Instead, people are afraid of losing autonomy and dignity. Notably, theyre afraid of becoming a burden on others. In the face of a youth-worshipping country that marginalizes the sick and dying, we should resist making the vulnerable feel like a burden not make it easier for them to kill themselves. Dignity doesnt come from the illusion of power and control, but from mutual dependence and love. More on California

Suicide by any other name(USA Today October 13, 2015) Right to die proponents take advantage of human vulnerability, obfuscate reality of assisted suicideBut verbal cloaking is the stock in trade of the right-to-die forces. The Orwellian-speak they employ to describe their effort is telling. It is death by euphemism. More on Verbal Engineering

Oregon claim of assisted suicide safeguards has critics(CalWatch October 9, 2015) A key argument spurring Gov. Jerry Browns recent decision to sign a bill allowing physician-assisted suicide in California, and the Legislatures desire to enact such a law, was that a similar law had worked well in OregonBut what was rarely acknowledged in the California media is that the Oregon law while wining positive notices from that states media has a solid core of skeptics who complained of skewed or inadequate data backing up assertions that the safeguards work. More on California More on Oregon

Governor should have talked to Holland before signing bill(Press Democrat October 7, 2015) By: Theo Boer, Professor of Health Care Ethics at Kampen University in The Netherlands. In 1994, the Dutch were the first in the world to officially legalize assisted dyingI was convinced that legalizing assisted dying was the wisest and most respectful routeHearing of Browns decision, and without doubt any of his good intentions, my thoughts go back to our own pioneering years. As I said, we have been naive. More on The Netherlands More on California

A Doctor-Assisted Disaster for Medicine(Wall Street Journal August 17, 2015) As a professor of family medicine at Oregons Health & Science University in Portland, as well as a licensed physician for 35 years, I have seen firsthand how the law has changed the relationship between doctors and patients, some of whom now fear that they are being steered toward assisted suicide. More on Oregon

Previously Featured ArticlesAlso see site map to access specific topics which include previously featured articles.

Have you heard about VSED? It stands for voluntarily stopping eating and drinking. VSED is being promoted by assisted-suicide activists who are also working to force health care providers to participate in it. Important Questions & Answers about VSED

From the bookshelfTwenty-four years ago, Ann Humphry, the co-founder of the Hemlock Society (now called Compassion and Choices) committed suicide. Her death made headlines worldwide.

Prior to her death, Ann contacted Rita Marker, a staunch euthanasia opponent. Over time, the two became close friends, and Ann asked Rita to make public secrets about the right-to-die movement secrets that had weighed heavily on Ann.

Two years after Anns tragic death, the book, Deadly Compassion: The Death of Ann Humphry and the Truth About Euthanasia was published. It recounts Anns personal story, the founding of the Hemlock Society, and activities of euthanasia and doctor-prescribed suicide advocates. Thousands of copies of the book were sold in the United States, England, Canada and Australia. (Read excerpts from reviews of the book.)

Now, for the first time, you ca
n read Deadly Compassion in its entirety on line in PDF format.

Go here to read the rest:

Patients Rights Council

Posted in Euthanasia | Comments Off

Euthanasia and assisted suicide – NHS Choices

Posted: June 15, 2016 at 3:29 pm

Euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending a person's life to relieve suffering.

For example,adoctor who gives a patient with terminal canceran overdose of muscle relaxants to end their life would be considered to have carried out euthanasia.

Assisted suicide is the act of deliberately assisting or encouraging another person to kill themselves.

If a relative of a person with a terminal illness wereto obtain powerful sedatives, knowing that the person intended to take an overdose of sedatives to kill themselves, theymay be considered tobe assisting suicide.

Both active euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal under English law.

Depending on the circumstances, euthanasia is regarded as either manslaughter or murder and is punishable bylaw, with a maximum penalty of up to life imprisonment.

Assisted suicide is illegal under the terms of the Suicide Act (1961) and is punishable by up to 14 years' imprisonment. Attempting tokill yourselfis not a criminal actin itself.

Euthanasia can be classified in different ways, including:

Euthanasia can also be classified as:

Depending on the circumstances, voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia could be regarded as either voluntary manslaughter (where someone kills another person, but circumstances can partly justify their actions) or murder.

Involuntary euthanasia is almost always regarded as murder.

There are arguments used by both supporters and opponents of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Read more about the arguments for and against euthanasia and assisted suicide.

If you are approaching the end of life, you have a right to goodpalliative careto control pain and other symptomsas well as psychological, social and spiritual support.

You're also entitled to have a say in the treatments you receive at this stage.

For example, under English law, all adults have the right to refuse medical treatment,as long as they have sufficient capacity (the ability to use and understand information to make a decision).

If you know that your capacity to consent may be affected in the future, you can arrange a legally bindingadvance decision (previously known as an advance directive).

An advance decision sets out the procedures and treatments that you consent to and those that you do not consent to. This means that the healthcare professionals treating you cannot perform certain procedures or treatments against your wishes.

Read more about yourrights when approaching the end of life.

Active euthanasia is currently only legal in Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg. Under the laws in these countries, a persons life can be deliberately ended by their doctor or other healthcare professional.

The person is usually given an overdose of muscle relaxants or sedatives.This causes acoma and then death.

However, euthanasia is only legal if the following three criteria are met:

Capacity is the ability to use and understand information to make a decision. Read more about the capacity to consent to treatment.

In some countries the law is less clear, with some forms of assisted suicide and passive euthanasia legal, but active euthanasia illegal.

For example, some types of assisted suicide and passive euthanasia are legal in Switzerland, Germany, Mexico and five American states.

Page last reviewed: 11/08/2014

Next review due: 11/08/2016

Read the rest here:

Euthanasia and assisted suicide - NHS Choices

Posted in Euthanasia | Comments Off

Euthanasia | Define Euthanasia at Dictionary.com

Posted: at 3:29 pm

Historical Examples

Illstarred heresiarch' In a Greek watercloset he breathed his last: euthanasia.

When I am too old to work and ready for euthanasia I shall have you come and talk me to death.

In August, 1900, came the euthanasia for which he had longed.

People did not deplore the dead warrior, but admired his euthanasia.

It was here that one enthusiast achieved a fisherman's euthanasia, for he dropped dead suddenly in the very act of playing a fish.

British Dictionary definitions for euthanasia Expand

the act of killing someone painlessly, esp to relieve suffering from an incurable illness Also called mercy killing

Word Origin

C17: via New Latin from Greek: easy death, from eu- + thanatos death

Word Origin and History for euthanasia Expand

c.1600, from Greek euthanasia "an easy or happy death," from eu- "good" (see eu-) + thanatos "death" (see thanatology). Sense of "legally sanctioned mercy killing" is first recorded in English 1869.

euthanasia in Medicine Expand

euthanasia euthanasia (y'th-n'zh, -zh-) n.

The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.

A quiet, painless death.

euthanasia in Science Expand

euthanasia in Culture Expand

Painlessly putting someone to death usually someone with an incurable and painful disease; mercy killing.

See more here:

Euthanasia | Define Euthanasia at Dictionary.com

Posted in Euthanasia | Comments Off

Page 97«..10 20..95 969798

Category Archives: Euthanasia

Euthanasia – New World Encyclopedia

Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide – All sides

Euthanasia and assisted suicide – Arguments – NHS Choices

Euthanasia | Define Euthanasia at Dictionary.com

Euthanasia – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Euthanasia – Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assisted Suicide – Information on right-to-die and …

Patients Rights Council

Euthanasia and assisted suicide – NHS Choices

Euthanasia | Define Euthanasia at Dictionary.com

The Prometheus League

Breaking News and Updates

Prometheism

Forbidden Fruit

The Evolutionary Perspective

Transtopia Menu

Library Updates

Library Books

Future Euvolution

Lucid Dreams from Childhood

Genetic Revolution

Speciation + Self-Directed Evolution