Euthanasia Is An Ethical Or Institutional Entitlement

The matter of euthanasia and assisted suicide is one of the most widely debated public policies in the UK today. Its legalisation will undoubtedly affect family and patient-doctor relationships and also challenge the concepts of what is considered to be ethical behaviour (Marker and Hamlon, 2005). But with overwhelming public support for its legalisation and unregulated assisted dying already common place in the medical profession (Doward 2004), surely a regulated system with the strictest safeguards in the world would be a preferable solution (Voluntary euthanasia society, 2004). The problems outlined by the 'slippery slope' theory and anti euthanasia groups present some powerful arguments against its legalisation, but after all, should it not be ones own choice of how and when to end their own life if they are suffering intolerable physical or mental pain (Doward 2004)?

Euthanasia can either be voluntary, with the consent of the person who will die, Nonvolentary, were the person’s wishes are not known. Involuntary, the

On the other hand, voluntary euthanasia is described as a situation in which the critically ill patient requests from someone else to help them die. They may either influence someone to assist them in suicide, or refuse life-saving medical treatment (Ramabele, 2004).

There are multiple types of physician assisted suicide. Collectively, they fall under the categories: active or passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is when someone steps in and deliberately ends a life. An example of this would be a physician administering a lethal dose of muscle relaxants to end the life of a patient. Passive euthanasia is best described as when a patient withdraws from a life preserving treatment. Euthanasia in general can also be classified as either voluntary, non-voluntary, and involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is when a person makes the conscious decision to end his or her life. Non-voluntary euthanasia is when a person is unable to give their consent, and another person makes this decision on their behalf. This usually is the case for patients who are in a coma who have previously expressed this wish. Involuntary euthanasia is when a person is killed against their wishes. Involuntary euthanasia is almost always considered

The main objective of this chapter is to highlight the predominant arguments in favour and against assisted dying. The analysis of these arguments and the provision of an extensive list of safeguards that would be included with the legalisation of assisted dying support the overarching argument that a liberal society must uphold the right to individual autonomy. And therefore, as long as strict safeguards are in place must allow suffering individuals the choice to end their

Euthanasia, formally known as mercy killing, is the act of intentionally causing the painless death of a sick person, rather than allowing that person to die naturally. In terms of a physician's actions, it can be passive in that a physician plays no direct role in the death of the person or it can be active in that the physician does something directly to cause the death (Yount, 2002). Euthanasia may also be formed into three types of act, which are voluntary, involuntary, and nonvoluntary. Voluntary involves killing the patient at his or her request. Involuntary occurs when the patient does not give consent, or refuses. Nonvoluntary is where the patient is not able to make the decision about their medical treatment so it is up to a third

Voluntary Euthanasia is the one in which the consent of the patient is usually taken and all actions are taken with the permission of the patient. The term is also referred to as ‘assisted suicide’ at times. This kind of euthanasia is legal in some countries.

Voluntary euthanasia is “the act of one person killing another in accordance with the competently expressed wishes of that person” (Schuklenk U., Van Delden J., Downie J., McLean S., Upshur R., Weinstock D., 2011). There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is defined as taking measures

The current legal status of assisted suicide in England and Wales is ‘inadequate and incoherent’ . If assisted suicide were legalised, strict safeguards must be in place, to avoid new legislation echoing the uncertain law currently in place and prevent it from going down a slippery slope of potential abuse.

MPs have voted overwhelmingly against changing the law to allow doctors to help terminally ill people end their lives. Opponents were outnumbered supporters by 212, with 330 voting against and 118 in favour. And opinion is not shifting - 74% of MPs voted against this bill compared with 72% back in 1997. Campaigners will regroup and point to their own polls showing 82% of the public back assisted dying and calls for change may yet intensify with an ageing population. The debate was heated on both sides, with many MPs drawing on their personal experiences of dying relatives to give weight to their argument. Most MP’s believed the bill was flawed, it is legally and ‘ethically totally unacceptable.’ In this essay I will look at both sides of the argument and evaluate the provisions and establish the weaknesses of them including the

We believe all people should have the freedom to make choices in their life, however the question posed today is whether we have the freedom to choose our death. Some say absolutely. We should have the freedom to decide how we spend our last days. If they’re filled with pain, debilitation, and cause hardship on our loved ones, we should have the right to opt out. Others take the position that we didn’t choose our birth therefore our death isn’t ours to choose either. This has caused considerable debate as moral, ethical and legal ramifications come into the mix. This in turn has led to defining the process under two different terms for legal purposes. They are euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Internationally, assisted suicide is when a doctor prescribes a drug that ends life, but the patient is responsible for taking them. Euthanasia is defined by the doctor giving the dose to the patient himself. Today, four countries have laws that allow euthanasia. These would be Albania, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg. (1) A select few have laws for physician assisted suicide. There are many countries that have no laws against suicide, or turn a blind eye. (2) The United States has recently added a 5th state to offer “Death with Dignity,” (3) however, this too is a division of categories. The name was created to form a separation between suicide and choosing death in the event of a terminal diagnosis.

“Nonvoluntary euthanasia” sounds like it would mean the same thing as involuntary euthanasia, but it does not. Like involuntary euthanasia, nonvoluntary euthanasia is requested by someone other than the patient, such as family members or a physician, and is performed without the patient’s consent (Pojman). However, the difference is that nonvoluntary euthanasia occurs when the patient’s wishes are unknown instead of acting deliberately against their wishes. In my opinion, it would be difficult to argue favorably for the morality of nonvoluntary active euthanasia. If the patient’s wishes are unknown, how can we as a society accept that they should be intentionally killed by nonvoluntary active euthanasia? How

This has three subgroups: Nonvoluntary euthanasia, which is done when the patient is incapable of deciding, involuntary euthanasia, which is done to end the suffering of a capable patient, and voluntary euthanasia, which is done at the patients request (Yount). A broader term many people assign these two acts to is suicide. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines suicide as “the act of killing yourself because you do not want to continue living.” Euthanasia is a form of suicide, but the two differ in their motives for death.

Euthanasia is the act of a physician or other third party ending a patient's life in response to severe pain and suffering. Euthanasia can be classified into three types. They are voluntary euthanasia, non-voluntary euthanasia and involuntary euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia is the action that takes the patient’s life without any informed consent of the patient but the patient may want to live.

‘Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of ‘right to life’. It is the duty of the State to protect life and the physician’s duty to provide care and not to harm patients. If euthanasia is legalised, then there is a grave apprehension that the State may refuse to invest in health (working towards Right to life). Legalised euthanasia has led to a severe decline in the quality of care for terminally-ill patients in Holland.