is euthanasia right?

Question

since euthanasia is mercy killing, the act of killing just to avoid too much pain of a patient. is euthanasia wrong or right?

Answer 1

Euthanasia (from Greek: ευθανασία -ευ, eu, "good", θανατος, thanatos, "death") is the practice of terminating 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.

Terminology:

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.

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. 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. 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. 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 countries removing or denying treatment without the clear instructions of the patient is usually seen as murder.

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.

Eugenics described as euthanasia
In Nazi Germany the term euthanasia was misused for the T-4 Euthanasia Program, which was actually a eugenics project. The objectives were to save expense and to preserve the genetic quality of the German population by killing those considered unworthy of life and sterilizing those considered unfit to breed. Since it was not for the benefit of the victims, it does not fit the definition of euthanasia as merciful. It has nevertheless tainted the word, especially in German-speaking countries, as one of the main advocates of euthanasia in Germany after World War II was Werner Catel, a leading Nazi doctor directly involved in T-4. The currently accepted German term is the older "Sterbehilfe" (literally "helping to die"), which is used in contemporary German discussions.

Legislation and national political movements:

- Australia: Euthanasia was legalized in Australia's Northern Territory, by the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. Soon after, the law was voided by an amendment by the Commonwealth to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978. The powers of the Northern Territory legislature, unlike those of the State legislatures, are not guaranteed by the Australian Constitution. However, before the Commonwealth government made this amendment, three people had already been legally euthanised.

Although it is a crime in most Australian states to assist in euthanasia, prosecutions have been rare. In 2002, relatives and friends who provided moral support to an elderly woman who committed suicide were extensively investigated by police, but no charges were laid. The Commonwealth government subsequently tried to hinder euthanasia with the passage of the Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Materials Offences) Bill 2004. In Tasmania in 2005 a nurse was convicted of assisting in the death of her elderly mother and father who were both suffering from illnesses. She was sentenced two and a half year jail but the judge later suspended the conviction because he believed the community did not want the woman put behind bars. This sparked debate about decriminalising euthanasia.

Belgium: The Belgian parliament legalized euthanasia in late September 2002. Proponents of euthanasia state that prior to the law, several thousand illegal acts of euthanasia were carried out in Belgium each year. According to proponents, the legislation incorporated a complicated process, which has been criticized as an attempt to establish a bureaucracy of death.

The Netherlands: In the Netherlands the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act took effect on April 1, 2002. It legalizes euthanasia and physician assistance in dying in certain circumstances.

The law recognized a practice that had been tolerated for some 20 years. From the time that euthanasia first came to be widely practiced in the Netherlands, it was formally subject to review by boards of doctors in each hospital. The law essentially codified what had already become tolerated practice and unofficial law by judgments in the courts.

The law permits euthanasia and physician assisted dying when each of the following conditions is fulfilled:

- the patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement
- the patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request can not be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)
- the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options
- there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above
- the death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, in which case the doctor must be present.
- the patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)
The doctor must also report the cause of death to the municipal coroner in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Burial and Cremation Act. A regional review committee assesses whether a case of termination of life on request or assisted suicide complies with the due care criteria. Depending on its findings, the case will either be closed or brought to the attention of the Public Prosecutor. Finally, the legislation offers an explicit recognition of the validity of a written declaration of will of the patient regarding euthanasia (a "euthanasia directive"). Such declarations can be used when a patient is in a coma or otherwise unable to state whether they want euthanasia or not.

The legislation has wide support among the socially libertarian Dutch, who have one of the world's highest life expectancies. There is however persistent opposition, mainly organized by the churches.

Euthanasia remains a criminal offense in cases not meeting the law's specific conditions, with the exception of several situations that are not subject to the restrictions of the law at all, because they are considered normal medical practice:

- stopping or not starting a medically useless (futile) treatment
- stopping or not starting a treatment at the patient's request
- speeding up death as a side-effect of treatment necessary for alleviating serious suffering

Euthanasia of children under the age of 12 remains technically illegal, however Dr. Eduard Verhagen has documented several cases and, together with colleagues and prosecutors, has developed a protocol to be followed in those cases. Prosecutors will refrain from pressing charges if this Groningen protocol is followed.

In 1992 a proposal was made known as Drion's Pill. This fictional drug would be a set of 2 pills. The first pill could be taken without any harm, the second pill would have to be taken a couple of days later (and only then would work). This would give the patient the time to think things over. The drug was never developed, the proposal however indirectly started up the discussion of euthanasia in Netherlands.

In 2003, in the Netherlands, 1626 cases were officially reported of euthanasia in the sense of a physician assisting the death (1.2% of all deaths). Usually the sedative sodium thiopental is intravenously administered to induce a coma. Once it is certain that the patient is in a deep coma, typically after some minutes, a muscle relaxant is administered to stop the breathing and cause death.

Officially reported were also 148 cases of physician assisted dying (0.14% of all deaths), usually by drinking a strong (10g) barbiturate potion. The doctor is required to be present for two reasons:

- to make sure the potion is not taken by a different person, by accident (or, theoretically, for "unauthorized" suicide or perhaps even murder)
- to monitor the process and be available to apply the combined procedure mentioned below, if necessary.

In two cases the doctor was reprimanded for not being present while the patient drank the potion. They said they had not realized that this was required.

Forty-one cases were reported to combine the two procedures: usually in these cases the patient drinks the potion, but this does not cause death. After a few hours, or earlier in the case of vomiting, the muscle relaxant is administered to cause death.

By far, most reported cases concerned cancer patients. Also, in most cases the procedure was applied at home.

United States:

Early History
The first major effort to legalize euthanasia in the United States arose alongside the eugenics movement in the early years of the twentieth century. Brown University historian Jacob M. Appel, in a 2004 article in the Bulletin of the History of Medicine, documents extensive political debate over legislation to legalize physician-assisted suicide in both Iowa and Ohio in 1906. The driving force behind the movement was social activist Anna S. Hall.

Texas
In 1999, Texas passed the Texas Futile Care Law. Under the law, in some situations, Texas hospitals and physicians have the right to withdraw life support on a patient whom they declare terminally ill.

On March 15, 2005, six month old infant Sun Hudson was the first person to die under the law.

In December 2005, doctors removed Tirhas Habtegiris, a young woman and legal immigrant from Africa, from life support against her family's wishes.

Euthanasia protocol: Euthanasia can be accomplished either through an oral, intravenous, or intramuscular administration of drugs. In individuals who are incapable of swallowing lethal doses of medication, an intravenous route is preferred.

Ethics: 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.

Religion: Some of the differences in public attitudes towards the right to die debate stem from the diversity of religion in the United States. The United States contains a wide array of religious views, and these views seem to correlate with whether euthanasia was supported. Using the results from past General Social Surveys performed, some patterns can be found. Respondents that did not affiliate with a religion were found to support euthanasia more than those who did.

Of the religious groups that were studied, which were mostly Christian in this particular study, conservative Protestants (including Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, and Evangelicals) were more opposed to euthanasia than non-affiliates and the other religious groups.

Moderate Protestants (including Lutherans and Methodists) and Catholics showed mixed views concerning end of life decisions in general. Both of these groups showed less support than non-affiliates, but were less opposed to it than conservative Protestants. Moderate Protestants are less likely to take a literal interpretation to Bible than their conservative counterparts, and some leaderships tend to take a less oppositional view on the issue. Despite the fact that the Catholic Church has come out in firm opposition to physician-assisted suicide, they share the nearly same level of support as moderate Protestants.

The liberal Protestants (including some Presbyterians and Episcopalians) were the most supportive of the groups. In general, they had looser affiliations with religious institutions and their views were similar to those of non-affiliates. Within all these groups, religiosity (identified as being frequency of church attendance and self-evaluation) also affected their level of opposition towards euthanasia. Individuals who attended church regularly and more frequently and considered themselves more religious were found to be more opposed than to those who had a lower level of religiosity [1].

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 after-life 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.[2]

In Hinduism, death has been referred to both as the ultimate truth and as one of the stages in human life. In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna urges Arjuna to fulfill his destiny or Dharma, and not to worry about consequences as death levels all: whatever you give and take, you do it on this earth. In Hindu mythology, some humans were given the right to choose the time of their deaths. This was awarded to only the most pure in heart, suggesting that Hinduism does not disapprove of euthanasia.

Philosophy: Friedrich Nietzsche, in The Twilight of the Idols, calls for euthanasia, writing, "To die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly. . . From love of life, one should desire a different death: free, conscious, without accident, without ambush."

Ethnicity: On many social and religious issues, African Americans are more conservative than European Americans[6]. In the specific case of euthanasia, recent studies have shown U.S. Caucasians to be more accepting than African Americans. They are also more likely to have advance directives and to use other end of life measures.[3] African Americans are almost 3 times more likely to oppose euthanasia than Caucasians. The main reason for this discrepancy is attributed to the lower levels of trust in the medical establishment.[4] Researchers believe that past history of abuses towards minority in medicine (such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study) have made minority groups less trustful of the level of care they receive. Studies have also found that there are significant disparities in the medical treatment and pain management that Caucasians and non-Caucasian receive.

Among African Americans, education correlates to support for euthanasia. African Americans without a four-year degree are twice as likely to oppose euthanasia than those with at least that much education. Level of education, however, does not significantly influence any other racial group in the US. Some researchers suggest that African Americans tend to be more religious, a claim that is difficult to substantiate and define.

Only African Americans and European Americans have been studied in extensive detail. Although it has been found that non-Caucasian groups are less supportive of euthanasia than Caucasians, there is still some ambiguity as to what degree this is true.

Films containing euthanasia:

Ik Omhels Je Met 1000 Armen (in English, A Thousand Kisses)
Mar adentro (in English, The Sea Inside)
Million Dollar Baby
Simon
They Shoot Horses, Don't They?
Soylent Green

Answer 2

It is funny how our society has these double standards. The euthanasia or abortion debates evokes a significant degree of passion on both sides and yet the same people who claim to be pro life see nothing wrong in sending American troops to fight in Iraq when the country had nothing to do with 9/11 or the bus explosion that occured in London last year. Obviously their opinons are not fully thought through.

There are different types of pain. Agnosing pain can be alleviated with analgesia opiates. e.g. morphine. Euthanasia should be legalised for the simply reason that there are exceptions when life becomes unbearable. Imagine that you completely paralysed in a car accident from the neck downwards. You are in considerable pain and highly dependant upon others for your basic daily care needs. e.g. feeding, toilet, cleaning. You can't communicate verbally due to another injury, you can't have any hobbies or interests, and seeing as you are still young and unmarried, there is nobody to visit you in hospital. The one thing that gives people meaning. Let say you are totally and completely alone. You are far worse off than Christopher Reeve. He had a lovely family and the financial backing. Lets say that you are prone to depression as well. After enduring two years of this in the same hospital, seeing no improvements in your condition, you decide that you are better off dead. Why should the law stand in your way? America is about freedom - we should have this freedom in death as well as in life. These arguments about the "slippery slope" are unfounded. The slipperly slope argument should NOT prevent us from making a a decision that is morally sound in case it might lead to a decision that is morally questionable (especially since its pure speculation)

And this argument should not be lead by religion either. Not everybody is religous and I don't want my fate decided by a scripture that I don't believe in.

Answer 3

This question goes beyond the wisdom of men-kind. It can only be answered by the person who wants to practice euthanasia on him- or herself. Nobody has the right to interfere with an important decision like this. No doctor, no relative, no friends and even no government!! Advice is alright of course, but no pushing is allowed, anti or pro.
It all really depends on some-ones awareness.

Answer 4

I think it is wrong. I cannot really give a great reason why we should not take away anybody's life for whatever reason.

I am not religious but religion says Thou Shall not Kill. Euthanasia is just another form of killing.

Science is not perfect. Life is still mysterious enough that someone who is suffering from a terminally ill disease may be cured miraculously. There are no answers as to how people get cured of cancer and HIV in some cases as well.

Bearing this in mind, would you be able to bear it in your conscience that you killed someone without knowing for sure that there was absolutely no cure for him/her. I would not be able to.

Answer 5

Practicality.
The etymology of 'freedom' is derived from the words 'free' and 'doom'. Laws against unassisted suicide are meaningless insofar as those that succeed are beyond the reach of the law.

Regulation and determination of timing and immeasurable quantities of suffering creates room for abuse if euthanasia laws were ratified. Delimiters of euthanasia in practice is that much more difficult to regulate.

Religion.
The invocation of the commandment "thou shalt not kill" from the Christian biblical context, must be applied uniformity to war and the death penalty as well.

When juxtaposed against evidence of euthanasia in the Bible, Jesus hung on the cross for three hours before allowing pass away. It usually takes longer to die from crucifixion. The Romans pierced him because "they were surprised he had died so soon".

Hitler believed air-raids to be racially beneficial and ordered that air-raid victims who have been maimed be done away with by euthanasia. (OSS)

Situation.
And in contrast with Diane Pretty, a British woman with Motor Neurone Disease, was paralysed neck down. She choked to death painfully over a week because the law disallowed her assistance in suicide. A soldier in somalia whose appendages and organs have largely been severed by shrapnel is left to bleed out in the same way suffers a slow death.

Alleviation of pain in the suffering is not a disputed theory but contentious when it comes to reconciling religious, customary, regulatory and actual execution. (NY Task Force)

Answer 6

I think if the person is dying and in severe pain that is hard to take they should be allowed to make a choice to live or die as they are the ones who are taking the pain and not others who disagree with this form??It is easy to say its wrong but what about the pain and suffering the patient that is terminally ill putting up with? is that right?? they should be allowed a choice if the patient is not mentally ill and fully able to make their own choices and decisions!!

Answer 7

Yes I think it's right because your giving someone the chance to just get it all over with and your actually helping them not feel anything

Answer 8

If it is the patients wish to end a life due to a terminal illness ,then it is RIGHT.
It society uses it to eliminate the elderly ,Then it is wrong .

Answer 9

No it is not right.
There should not be any law which makes it legal to kill another person. Once it is legalised, it will be abused.

Answer 10

Euthanasia is killing, and no killing is good.

Answer 11

i think it was a good idea