Allow Me To Die: Euthanasia In Belgium

Today, there is a large debate over the situation and consequences of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of ending a human’s life by lethal injection or the stoppage of medication, or medical treatment. It has been denied by most of today’s population and is illegal in the fifty states of the United States. Usually, those who undergo this treatment have a disease or an “unbearable” pain somewhere in the body or the mind. Since there are ways, other than ending life, to stop pain caused by illness or depression, euthanasia is immoral, a disgrace to humanity, according to the Hippocratic Oath, and should be illegal throughout the United States.

Euthanasia is the practice of ending an individual's life in order to relieve them from an incurable disease or unbearable suffering. The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek word for "good death" and originally referred to as “intentional killing” ( Patelarou, Vardavas, Fioraki, Alegakis, Dafermou, & Ntzilepi, 2009). Euthanasia is a controversial topic which has raised a great deal of debate globally. Although euthanasia has received great exposure in the professional media, there are some sticky points that lack clarity and need to be addressed. Euthanasia is a divisive topic, and different interpretations of its meaning, depend on whether the person supports it or not. While a few societies have accepted euthanasia, there are

Albert Camus once quoted, “But in the end, one needs more courage to live than to kill them self.” Today I will be discussing the topic of Euthanasia also known as “assisted suicide.” The word originated from the Greeks, meaning “good death”. Euthanasia refers to the ending of one’s life, primarily to end suffering and pain. Euthanasia is a controversial topic and generates many political and religious debates. Although euthanasia is illegal in Canada, in some jurisdictions such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and the American states of Washington, Oregon and Montana, euthanasia is a legal and common practice.

Euthanasia is one of the most controversial topics in modern society, and every human being has a different view on it according to their culture, their nation's

When a patient is terminally ill or is experiencing extreme pain, often Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide can both be plausible options to end any suffering. Euthanasia is currently legalized in seven countries and parts of the United States (New Health Guide). This number is not likely to increase soon because of the high controversy, which is due to the very serious topic of this matter: a person 's life. The general process of these medical methods is usually understood as a doctor somehow deliberately causing the death of a patient or helping with their suicide. Many believe that it is unethical and violates laws, oaths, and more. Though people believe this, it is truly unethical to not give a person a choice in the manner in which they will perish.

Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someone’s life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. “All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life” (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death. It raises legal issues as well as the issue of morals and ethics. Euthanasia is divided into two different categories, passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. “There are unavoidable uncertainties in both active and

Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are both types of medical assistance aiding in ending a suffering patient’s life. This pain may be due to a terminal illness and suffering as well as those in an irreversible coma. This practice of doctor assisted suicide is illegal in many countries, but is increasing in popularity as people start to recognize the positive aspects that euthanasia has to offer for those that fit the criteria. Euthanasia is essential for those, placed in such life diminishing situations, and whom no longer want to experience suffering. This is where the issue gets complicated, and many religious groups argue that individuals should not have the legal right to choose whether they get to die or not, but that it is simply in God’s hands. Suffering patients argue that they should be given the right to choose whether or not they have to experience this suffering, to end their life with the dignity they still have, and to alleviate the stress that their deteriorating life conditions have on their families, themselves and the entire healthcare system. Therefore, despite the many arguments, euthanasia can have a very positive impact on the lives and families of suffering individuals, as well as the Canadian healthcare system.

Prior to viewing “Life Affirming Choices”, I had not put much thought into the topics of euthanasia, suffering, life or death. I did not realize the importance of this issue and all of the people who are faced to make a terminal decision about themselves or loved one. Countries have different stances on the issue of euthanasia. Although euthanasia is illegal in the United States, some states allow the practice of physician assisted suicide. Everyone who debates euthanasia agrees that its definition is the killing of a person for the specific reason to stop their suffering. There are two types of euthanasia, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is when euthanasia is conducted with consent of the sufferer. Involuntary euthanasia is

Euthanasia is largely contested and debated because many people in society deem it does not fit with their idea of how they should behave and believe (Botton, 2000). The main debate within the issue of euthanasia is that the individual is able to understand their own experiences (Mills, 1959) and they are capable to interpret the value of those experiences (Kymlicka, 2002) in a manner which constitutes them being able to make major decisions involving the future of their life. Unfortunately due to almost all of the individuals that wish to be euthanised having serious and terminal illnesses, they are not able to freely choose how they want to live their life, and are constantly being penalised by society (Kymlicka, 2002). Some people see the issue of euthanasia a public issue, in which the value of life is threatened for the community, many see it as a private trouble for the individual (Mills, 1959). Currently euthanasia is legal in only four countries while assisted suicide is legal in four more and five US states, while debate about the legalisation in other countries, such as Australia is non-existent. This gives a sense of marginalisation to those whose wish to practice euthanasia and their families, which in tern leads to a lack of involvement in society (Mills, 1959). The choice to end ones life

Today, voluntary euthanasia is getting closer to being legalized in more than just one state in the United States. “‘Voluntary’ euthanasia means that the act of putting the person to death is the end result of the person’s own free will” (Bender 19). “ Voluntary euthanasia is an area worthy of our serious consideration, since it would allow patients who have exhausted all other reasonable options to choose death rather than continue suffering” (Bender 19). The question of whether or not voluntary euthanasia should be legalized is a major debate that has been around for years. Because the issue of whether people should have the right to choose how they want to live or die is so complex. With the advances in technology today we have made

      The Dutch take their euthanasia seriously. The Dutch government has resubmitted its proposal for formally legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia, while modifying its controversial provision allowing euthanasia for children. When first proposed to Parliament over a year ago, the bill allowed for cases where children from 12 to 16 years old could request and receive euthanasia "against the wishes of their parents." The modified proposal still allows child euthanasia in this age group, but not over parents' objections [New York Times, 7/14/00]. Still unclear is the fate of another controversial feature of the original bill, allowing adults to sign advance directives requesting euthanasia in the

pressured by the Reich who threatened their parental rights. Threat almost always convinced a parent to institutionalize their child.

Though PAD allows some people to end their suffering, it does not nearly benefit all the people it is intended to benefit. Euthanasia ends suffering for a broader array of people who do not meet the strict PAD statutes, although the goals of PAD laws are meant for these exact people. PAD laws limit the number of people they are intended to help in addition to not fulfilling their exact purpose. The morals and medical rationality behind PAD and euthanasia are almost identical.

Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of an individual for the purposes of relieving pain and suffering. Over the years, there has been a big debate about its merits and demerits, and the debate is not about to end anytime soon. However, no matter what side of the debate one supports, it is important to consider a few facts. One, the prolonged stay in hospital is bound to raise medical costs. Two, some medical complications bring suffering and pain to the patient without any possibility of getting back to one 's normal activities of daily living. However, ending the life of a person intentionally may be treated as a serious crime in some jurisdictions. Given these facts, it is evident that making a decision about euthanasia is bound to be a challenging task. Although not everyone might agree, euthanasia is a necessary procedure that relieves the pain and suffering of the patient and rids the family and the government of expensive medical costs that would not necessary improve the life of the patient.

On March 3rd 2014, the law was changed in Belgium to abolish all age restrictions on euthanasia. This amendment allows euthanasia for terminally ill children who are exposed to “constant and unbearable suffering” (1). The act was passed in the Belgian Parliament with 86 votes in favour, and 44 against (with 12 abstentions). This amends Belgium’s previous law, “The Belgian Act on Euthanasia”, which was passed in 2002 (2), whereby euthanasia was only available to individuals over the age of eighteen or emancipated minors. There are several arguments in favour of this amendment including the belief that the rights of autonomy and justice must extend to children. Furthermore, prolonging life where the child has a loss of dignity and a reduced quality of life is seen by some as inhumane. In contrast, opponents of the amendment believe that the child’s right to life and doctor’s obligation to save life are both severely undermined. Opponents are concerned that a child does not possess the capacity to make the decision to end their own life. There is also the worry that granting paediatric euthanasia may lead to a ‘slippery slope’ whereby children could be euthanized without making a fully voluntary request. Despite the fact that public opinion was broadly in favour of the amendment (3), the question must be asked, was the amendment of this law in favour of murder or mercy?