effects of euthanasia in the society?

Answer 1

Less agonizing unnecessarily drawn out deaths, less money for doctors and lawyers, guess who wins.

Answer 2

Euthanasia of what? Animals? People?

Answer 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya_uJHdOtdc

That should solve all your answers about euthanasia....This video is a must watch for all... (Nothing graphic)

Answer 4

Is there a question here? Can you be specific?

Answer 5

Euthanasia (from Greek: ευθανασία -ευ, eu, "good", θανατος, thanatos, "death") is the practice of ending the life of a person or an animal because they are perceived as living an intolerable life, in a painless or minimally painful way either by lethal injection, drug overdose, or by the withdrawal of life support. Euthanasia is a controversial issue because of conflicting religious and humanist views.

Euthanasia of humans as a topic is often highly-charged—emotionally, politically, and morally. Terminology and laws shift over time, geographically and globally, causing a great deal of confusion.

Debate exists as how to precisely define euthanasia. According to the narrow definition only acts of killing, where a definite action is taken to end the patient's life, constitutes euthanasia. In a more broad definition, both direct killing and allowing a patient to die," where the steps needed to preserve a life are simply not taken, would constitute euthanasia. The moral importance of this distinction is that if one uses the narrow distinction, allowing someone to die does not constitute euthanasia and one may argue that all acts of euthanasia are inherently wrong.

Following the broad definition of euthanasia as outlined by James Rachels, euthanasia may employ methods that are active or passive. Active euthanasia refers to a physician painlessly putting to death some persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases. Passive euthanasia, in contrast, refers to any act of allowing the patient to die, which may include failing to provide necessary medication as well as taking a patient off life support. Both active and passive euthanasia can be voluntary, nonvoluntary or involuntary. (See Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche for one of the first uses of the three types of euthanasia.)

Physician assisted suicide is where doctors assist terminally ill patients in taking their own life. This is often seen as morally distinct from euthanasia because the physician does not directly cause the patient's death but enables the patient to choose the time and circumstances of his or her own death.

Voluntary euthanasia occurs with the fully-informed request of a decisionally-competent adult patient or that of their surrogate (proxy). (Example: Thomas Youk with ALS was assisted by Jack Kevorkian.) This should not be confused with death after treatment is stopped on the instructions of the patient himself, either directly or through a do not resuscitate (DNR) order. Enforcing a DNR order has never been considered assisted suicide or suicide of any kind, at least in the eyes of the law. Patients of sound mind have always had a right to refuse treatment.

Nonvoluntary euthanasia occurs without the fully-informed consent and fully-informed request of a decisionally-competent adult patient or that of their surrogate (proxy). An example of this might be if a "patient" has decisional capacity but is not told they will be euthanized; or, if a patient is not conscious or lacks decisional-capacity and their surrogate is not told the patient will be euthanized.

Involuntary euthanasia occurs over the objection of a patient or their surrogate (proxy). An example of this might be if a patient with decisional capacity (or their surrogate) is told what will happen. The patient (or surrogate) refuses yet the patient is euthanized anyway. This is generally considered murder. If a patient slated for euthanasia changes his or her mind at the last minute, the doctor is categorically required by law to honor that wish. In most other countries removing or denying treatment without the clear instructions of the patient is usually seen as murder.[citation needed]

Terminal sedation is a combination of medically inducing a deep sleep and stopping other treatment, with the exception of medication for symptom control (such as analgesia). It is considered to be euthanasia by some, but under current law and medical practice it is considered a form of palliative care.

Animal euthanasia is commonly referred to by the euphemism "put to sleep".

Mercy Killing is a term used for some cases of euthanasia. Typically it refers to euthanasia by a someone other than a doctor, such as a parent, who perceives the individual to be suffering. In some cases the individual cannot consent. In some cases the individual can consent but is not asked or refuses. Lastly, in some cases the individual consents, and it may even be them who initiates the discussion.

There are a number of conflicting beliefs about euthanasia. Different aspects of euthanasia are supported by different people. Some people argue against euthanasia based on the belief that only God should choose when someone dies. For the same reason, the Catholic church has long viewed suicide as a sin. Some people approve of some forms of euthanasia in principle, but fear a "slippery slope" that will result in support of other forms of euthanasia they are opposed to. With regards to nonvoluntary euthanasia, the cases where the person could consent but was not asked are often viewed differently from those where the person could not consent. Some people raise issues regarding stereotypes of disability that can lead to non-disabled or less disabled people overestimating the person's suffering, or assuming it to be unchangeable when it could be changed. For example, many disabled people responded to Tracy Latimer's death by pointing out that her parents had refused a hip surgery that could have greatly reduced or eliminated the physical pain Tracy experienced. Also, they point out that a severely disabled person need not be in emotional pain at their situation, and claim that the emotional pain, if present, is due to societal prejudice rather than the disability, analogous to a black person wanting to die because they have internalized negative stereotypes about being black. With regards to voluntary euthanasia, many people argue that 'equal access' should apply to access to suicide as well, so therefore disabled people who cannot kill themselves should have access to voluntary euthanasia. Others respond to this argument by pointing out that if a nondisabled person attempts suicide, all measures possible are taken to save their lives. Suicidal people are often given involuntary medical treatment so that they will not die. This argument states that it is due to societal prejudice, namely that disabled people are of lower worth and that any unhappiness must be due to the disability, which results in greater support of voluntary euthanasia by disabled people than suicide by nondisabled people.

In the last 20 years, some states in the United States of America have faced voter ballot initiatives and "legislation bills" attempting to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. Some examples include: Washington voters saw Ballot Initiative 119 in 1991, California placed Proposition 161 on the ballot in 1992, and Michigan included Proposal B in their ballot in 1998. Public opinion concerning this issue has become increasingly important because widespread support could very well facilitate the legalization of these policies in other states, such as in Oregon.

While many people are aware of the ongoing debates concerning the issue of euthanasia and assisted suicide, it has been unclear where the public opinion stands in the United States. A recent Gallup Poll survey did show that 75% of Americans supported euthanasia. Further research, however, has shown that there are significant differences in levels of support for euthanasia across distinct social groups. Recently, these attitudes have been receiving more attention since they not only could influence the legislation on this topic, but how patients are cared for in the future.

--------

Anyone who even thinks about killing or ending someone's life or is even willing assist in someone's suicide should be meted the same punishment.

--------

The statement below is the Hippocratic oath which all doctors and physicians swore by....

I swear by Æsculapius, Hygeia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath.

To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and if necessary to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art if they so desire without fee or written promise; to impart to my sons and the sons of the master who taught me and the disciples who have enrolled themselves and have agreed to the rules of the profession, but to these alone the precepts and the instruction.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.

Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."

The revised version:

Several parts of the oath have been removed or re-shaped over the years in various countries, schools, and societies as the social, religious, and political importance of medicine has changed. Most schools administer some form of oath, but the great majority no longer use the ancient version, which praised non-Abrahamic deities, advocated teaching of men but not women, and forbade general practitioners from surgery, abortion, euthanasia, or abuse of the prescription pad. Also missing from the ancient Oath and from many modern versions are the complex ethical issues associated with HMOs, living wills, and whether morning-after pills are technically closer to prophylactics or an abortion.

Changed portions of the oath:

To teach medicine to the sons of my teacher. In the past, medical schools would give preferential consideration to the children of physicians. This too has largely disappeared.

Not to teach medicine to other people. If taken seriously, a physician who attempts to educate or make aware of treatment options, even online, to anyone not enrolled in medical school would lose his or her license.

To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them. This beneficial intention is the purpose of the physician. However, this item is still invoked in discussions of euthanasia.

Never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest. Physician organizations in the U.S. and most other countries have strongly denounced physician participation in legal executions.

Never to attempt to induce an abortion. The wide availability of abortions in much of the world suggests that many physicians no longer feel bound by this.

To avoid violating the morals of my community. Many licensing agencies will revoke a physician's license for offending the morals of the community ("moral turpitude").

To avoid attempting to do things that other specialists can do better. The "stones" referred to are kidney stones or bladder stones, removal of which was judged too difficult for physicians, and therefore was left for surgeons (specialists). It is interesting how early the value of specialization was recognized. The range of knowledge and skills needed for the range of human problems has always made it impossible for any single physician to maintain expertise in all areas. This also highlights the different historical origins of the surgeon and the physician.

To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority. There may be other conflicting "good purposes," such as community welfare, conserving economic resources, supporting the criminal justice system, or simply making money for the physician or his employer that provide recurring challenges to physicians.

To avoid sexual relationships or other inappropriate entanglements with patients and families. The value of avoiding conflicts of interest has never been questioned.

To keep confidential all private patient information. Confidentiality between physician and patient continues to be valued and protected, but governments and third-parties have occasionally encroached upon it.

--------

Any doctor or physician who does what is contrary to the Hippocratic oath (in matters of euthanasia) is a murderer.