DOCSLIB.ORG

Euthanasia Or Mercy Killing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Euthanasia Or Mercy Killing Euthanasia or mercy killing Modern history Since the 19th 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. After the Civil War, voluntary euthanasia was promoted by advocates, including some doctors. Support peaked around the turn of the century in the US and then grew again in the 1930s. In an article in the Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Brown University historian Jacob M. Appel documented extensive political debate over legislation to legalize physician-assisted suicide in both Iowa and Ohio in 1906. Appel indicates social activist Anna S. Hall was the driving force behind this movement. According to historian Ian Dowbiggin, leading public figures, including Clarence Darrow and Jack London, advocated for the legalization of euthanasia. Euthanasia societies were formed in England in 1935 and in the USA in 1938 to promote euthanasia. Although euthanasia legislation did not pass in the USA or England, in 1937, doctor-assisted euthanasia was declared legal in Switzerland as long as the doctor ending the life had nothing to gain. During this same era, US courts 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 Euthanasia (from the Greek εὐθανασία meaning "good death" refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. There are different euthanasia laws in each Country. The House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics of England defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering." In the Netherlands, euthanasia is understood as "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient" Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries and U.S. states. Non- voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries. However, in the Netherlands, physicians can avoid prosecution by following well described and strict conditions. Involuntary euthanasia is usually considered murder. Voluntary euthanasia: refers to the practice of ending a life in a painless manner. Voluntary euthanasia (VE) and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) have been the focus of great controversy in recent years. As of 2009, some forms of voluntary euthanasia are legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the U.S. states of Oregon and Washington. Assisted suicide Assisted suicide is where the patient actively takes the last step in their death. The term "assisted suicide" is contrasted with "active euthanasia" when the difference between providing the means and actively administering lethal medicine is considered important, though in practice, the distinction can appear very hard to draw. For example, Swiss law on assisted suicide allows assisted suicide, while all forms of active euthanasia (like lethal injection) remain prohibited. Some jurisdictions declare that a person dying as a result of physician assisted suicide does not commit suicide. This ensures that terminally ill people choosing assisted suicide options do not have reduced insurance claims compared to people dying in "natural" way. For example, the Oregon Death with Dignity Act defines that "... participation under the Act is not suicide, so should not affect insurance benefits by that definition." Other terminology Voluntary refusal of food and fluids (VRFF) or Patient Refusal of Nutrition and Hydration (PRNH) is bordering on euthanasia. Some authors classify it as a form of passive euthanasia, while others treat it separately because it is treated differently from legal point of view and often perceived as a more ethical option. VRFF is sometimes suggested as a legal alternative to euthanasia in jurisdictions disallowing euthanasia. Non-voluntary euthanasia (sometimes known as mercy killing) is euthanasia conducted where the explicit consent of the individual concerned is unavailable. In the modern world, the term is usually applied to medical situations. It may be contrasted with involuntary euthanasia, where euthanasia is performed against the will of the patient.[2][3] Involuntary euthanasia occurs when euthanasia is performed on a person who is able to provide informed consent, but does not, either because they do not choose to die, or because they were not asked. It is typically, but not always, murder.[2] For example: A soldier has their stomach blown open by a shell burst. They are in “ great pain and screaming in agony. They beg the army doctor to save ” their life. The doctor knows that they will die in ten minutes whatever happens. As he has no painkilling drugs with him he decides to spare the soldier further pain and shoots them dead. Involuntary euthanasia is contrasted with voluntary euthanasia (euthanasia performed with the patient's consent) and non-voluntary euthanasia (where the patient is unable to give their informed consent, for example when a patient is comatose or a child). Involuntary euthanasia is widely opposed and is regarded as a crime in legal jurisdictions, and is sometimes used as a reason for not changing laws relating to other forms of euthanasia Historically, involuntary euthanasia has received some support from parts of the eugenics and pro-euthanasia movements. During the Second World War, the Nazis ran an involuntary "Euthanasia Programme", later called Action T4, which was supposed to grant "mercy deaths" to incurable patients. In practice it was used to exterminate "lives unworthy of life" as part of their "racial hygiene" concept and, as a result, at least 200,000 physically or mentally handicapped people were killed by medication, starvation, or in the chambers between 1939 and 1945. Although some authors have identified fundamental similarities between Action T4 and euthanasia, (for example, Leo Alexander noted that both the euthanasia movement at the time and Action T4 emerged from the same basic principals), it has been argued that the Action T4 program did not constitute euthanasia, in spite of the use of the term, in part because it was not intended to be in the interests of the subject. Instead it is argued that the use of the word "euthanasia" was as a "camouflage word for manslaughter and murder of innocent subgroups of the population on the grounds of disabilities, religious beliefs, and discordant individual values".Whether or not it can be defined as euthanasia, Action T4 is employed within the euthanasia debate as an example of where legalising euthanasia can potentially lead.[11] More recently, Brad Hooker noted that "we can distinguish between killing innocent people against their wishes but for their own good, and killing them for some other reason", although he also stated that such a distinction is not very useful and would be likely to scare people away from medical experts, and that he "cannot imagine how allowing involuntary euthanasia could generate benefits large enough to begin to offset this loss".Philosopher Peter Singer, in his book Practical Ethics, after arguing in favour of voluntary and non- voluntary euthanasia also speaks of conceivable cases of justifiable involuntary euthanasia, but rejects the latter as "fortunately, more encountered in fiction than in reality." Animal euthanasia This article is about mercy killing of non-human animals. For compassionate death in Animal euthanasia (from the Greek meaning "good death") is the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, an animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition. Euthanasia methods are designed to cause minimal pain and distress. Euthanasia is distinct from animal slaughter and pest control, which are performed for purposes other than an act of mercy, although in some cases the killing procedure is the same. In domesticated animals, this process is commonly referred to by euphemisms such as "lay down", "put down", "put to sleep", "destroyed", or "put out of its/his/her misery". Reasons for euthanasia Lethal chamber in the Royal London Institute and Home for Lost and Starving Cats • Terminal illness – e.g. cancer • Rabies • Behavioral problems (that usually cannot be corrected) – e.g. aggression • Illness or broken limbs that would cause suffering for the animal to live with, or when the owner cannot afford (or has a moral objection to) treatment. • Old age – Deterioration to loss of major bodily functions. Severe impairment of the quality of life. • Lack of homes - many shelters receive considerably more surrendered animals than they are capable of re-housing. Small animal euthanasia is typically performed in a veterinary clinic or hospital, or in an animal shelter, and is usually carried out by a veterinarian, or a veterinary technician working under the veterinarian's supervision. Often animal shelter workers are trained to do euthanasia as well. Some veterinarians will perform the euthanasia at the pet owner's home – this is virtually mandatory in the case of large animal euthanasia. In the case of large animals which have sustained injuries, this will also occur at the site of the accident, for example on a racecourse. Some animal rights organizations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, support animal euthanasia in certain circumstances, and practice euthanasia at shelters that they operate. Jack Kevorkian: How he made controversial history Jack Kevorkian, the controversial American doctor who claimed to have assisted more than 100 suicides, has died aged 83. To his critics, he was Dr Death. To other detractors, Jack the Dripper. Kevorkian was given plenty of nicknames after receiving international attention in the 1990s, throughout which he waged a defiant campaign to help people end their lives.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Physician-Assisted Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia: Some Relevant Differences John Deigh
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 88 Article 14 Issue 3 Spring Spring 1998 Physician-Assisted Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia: Some Relevant Differences John Deigh Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation John Deigh, Physician-Assisted Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia: Some Relevant Differences, 88 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1155 (Spring 1998) This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/98/8803-1155 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW& CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 88, No. 3 Copyright 0 1998 by Northwestern University, School of Law Prinfd in U.SA. PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE AND VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA: SOME RELEVANT DIFFERENCES JOHN DEIGH" Yale Kamisar, in a series of influential articles on physician- assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia, has written elo- quently in opposition to legalizing these practices.1 Today he revisits the first of these articles, his seminal 1958 article, Some Non-Religious Views Against Proposed "Mercy-Killing"Legislation. 2 In that paper Professor Kamisar used the distinction between the law on the books and the law in action to quiet concerns about the harsh consequences of a blanket prohibition on mercy kill- ing. A blanket prohibition, after all, if strictly applied, would impose criminal punishment on physicians and relatives whose complicity in bringing about the death of a patient, or loved one was justified by the dying person's desperate condition and lucid wish to die.
    [Show full text]
  • Factors Influencing Individuals Attitudes Toward Voluntary Active
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Donna A Champeau for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Public Health presented on November 23, 1994. Title: Factors Influencing Individual Attitudes Toward Voluntary Active Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide. Redacted for privacy Abstract approved: Rebecca J. Donate lle Issues of right to life, as well as death have surfaced as topics of hot debate. In particular, questions about when and if individuals have the right to end their own lives have emerged and gained considerable attention as health policy issues having the potential to affect all Americans.. The purpose of this study was to identify the factors that are most likely to influence an individual's decision to support or not support voluntary active euthanasia (VAE) and physician assisted suicide (PAS) in specific medical situations. This study also examined the differences in medical vignettes by various demographic and attitudinal factors. Data were collected from a sample of classified staff members at two institutions of higher learning in Oregon. A survey was used to collect all data. Paired sample T- tests, stepwise multiple regression analysis and repeated measures multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) were used to analyze the data. Based on survey results, there were significant differences in attitudes toward PAS and VAE for each medical vignette. Religious beliefs, fear of dependency, and fear of death were the most powerful predictors of individual support for PAS in each medical situation. In the case of VAE, there were differences in support on each medical situation in terms of the most powerful predictors: fear of dependency and religious beliefs for the cancer vignette, fear of dependency, religious beliefs, and age for the ALS vignette, and religious beliefs and fear of dependency for the paralysis vignette.
    [Show full text]
  • “Good Death” in Small Animals and Consequences for Euthanasia in Animal Law and Veterinary Practice
    animals Article Philosophy of a “Good Death” in Small Animals and Consequences for Euthanasia in Animal Law and Veterinary Practice Kirsten Persson 1,*, Felicitas Selter 2, Gerald Neitzke 2 and Peter Kunzmann 1 1 Stiftung Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover, Bünteweg 9, 30559 Hannover, Germany; [email protected] 2 Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany; [email protected] (F.S.); [email protected] (G.N.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 30 November 2019; Accepted: 7 January 2020; Published: 13 January 2020 Simple Summary: Euthanasia in veterinary practice is often discussed as one of the profession’s major burdens. At the same time, it is meant to bring relief to terminally ill and/or severely suffering animal patients. This article examines “euthanasia” from a philosophical perspective regarding different definitions and underlying basic assumptions concerning the meaning of death and welfare for nonhuman animals. These theoretical issues will then be discussed in relation to laws and guidelines on euthanasia and practical challenges with end-of-life decisions in small animal practice. Factors which are identified as potential causes of the complex problems regarding euthanasia are as follows: the confusing framework for euthanasia in law and soft regulations; the inclusion of many stakeholders’ perspectives in end-of-life decision-making; potential conflicts between the veterinarians’ personal morality and legal requirements and professional expectations; and, most of all, the veterinarians’ lack of awareness for underlying philosophical assumptions regarding possible understandings of euthanasia. Different practical suggestions are made to clarify and facilitate euthanasia in small animal practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Collective Rights Vs Individual Rights? Examining the “Right to Die.”
    William L. Saunders Collective Rights vs Individual Rights? Examining the “Right to Die.” Introduction Properly understood, there is no conflict between “collective rights” and “individual rights.” Part of the reason a conflict is assumed to exist is that a sound understanding of what constitutes a “right” has been lost. This is because often, and falsely, mere “wishes” are conflated with “rights.” Harvard Professor Mary Ann Glendon helpfully analyzed this in her book Rights Talk.1 True “collective rights” and true “individual rights” buttress each other and are better understood as aspects of “human rights.” Since human persons live in community, an aspect of human rights concerns communities (or societies or cultures) in which human beings live. However, those communities are not obligated to indulge every individual’s whim or purported “right.” Wishes and desires, even if deeply felt, do not constitute “rights.” Rather, rights properly understood are reflections of what is good for the human person. Society has an obligation to respect and promote the good of the human person, not an individual’s subjective desires. Recognizing and respecting legitimate individual human rights promotes the common good, and vice versa. Thus, a proper understanding of human rights reconciles alleged conflicts between “collective” and “individual” rights. However, false “rights” threaten the good of both the in- dividual and society. A purported new “right,” the “right to die,” illustrates these points. The first section of this paper will define what is meant by the “right to die.” The second section will show there is no foun- dation in the law for a “right to die.” The third section will explain why creating a new “right to die” is detrimental to society, particularly the medical profession, the elderly, the depressed, and the disabled.
    [Show full text]
  • Informed Consent and Euthanasia: an International Human Rights Perspective1
    ICLR, 2018, Vol. 18, No. 2. INFORMED CONSENT AND EUTHANASIA: AN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE1 Jessica McKenney American University Washington, USA [email protected] MCKENNEY, Jessica. Informed Consent and Euthanasia: An International Human Rights Perspective. International and Comparative Law Review, 2018, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 118–133. DOI: 10.2478/iclr-2018-0041. Summary: This Paper addresses the right to informed consent regarding euthanasia using international conventions and, to a lesser extent, national laws and policies. Spe- cifically, The United States, Belgium and the Netherlands will be examined. The Paper specifically discusses legal capacity, the right to consent and the right to information. Three stories are used to argue the importance of implementing effective safeguards for these rights and notes that these safeguards are necessary regardless of whether or not euthanasia is legalized in a state. This Paper also argues that patients should not be offered euthanasia for mental illnesses. The ethical debate surrounding whether eutha- nasia should be permitted generally is not discussed. Keywords: Informed Consent, Euthanasia, Terminally Ill, Mentally Ill, United States, Belgium, Netherlands, Human Rights 1. Introduction Death is an inevitable part of human existence that all people must face, and for most of us, the time and place of this death is unknown. But what if someone did know the time and place? What if that someone was a doctor or a nurse, or the very person that was going to experience death? To go a step further, what if these actors actually caused the death to occur at a specific time and place? If this is possible, then the people that are going to experience death at a given time are in great need of protection to ensure that their lives are not ended unwillingly.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of New Evidence on Euthanasia's Slippery Slope Christopher James Ryan Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW 2145, Australia
    J7ournal ofMedical Ethics 1998;24:341-344 Pulling up the runaway: the effect of new evidence on euthanasia's slippery slope Christopher James Ryan Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW 2145, Australia Abstract The details of our decline and exactly where we The slippery slope argument has been the mainstay of will end up vary from author to author, but, for all, many of those opposed to the legalisation of our original well-intended action placed us upon a physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. In this slippery slope that is the genesis of future woes. paper I re-examine the slippery slope in the light of The slippery slope is the major weapon in the two recent studies that examined the prevalence of armamentarium of those who believe physician- medical decisions concerning the end oflife in the assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia should In two studies have Netherlands and in Australia. I argue that these two remain illegal. recent times been that, taken together, provide a studies have robbed the slippery slope of the source of published strong rejoinder to the slippery slope. In the con- its power - its intuitive obviousness. Finally I propose text of the Australian parliament's quashing of the contrary to the the slope, that, warnings of slippery Northern Territory Rights of the Terminally Ill the available evidence suggests that the legalisation of suicide might actually decrease the Act and the US Supreme Court's deliberations physician-assisted over physician-assisted suicide the results of these prevalence of non-voluntary and involuntary studies could not have been more timely.
    [Show full text]
  • Euthanasia: None Dare Call It Murder Joseph Sanders
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 60 | Issue 3 Article 9 1970 Euthanasia: None Dare Call It Murder Joseph Sanders Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Joseph Sanders, Euthanasia: None Dare Call It Murder, 60 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 351 (1969) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. THE JOuRxAL OF CRIMINAL LAW, CRIMJINOLOGY AND POLsCU SCIENCE Vol. 60, No. 3 Copyright © 1969 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A. EUTHANASIA: NONE DARE CALL IT MURDER JOSEPH SANDERS On August 9, 1967, Robert Waskin, a twenty- nature of the act, the status of the actor and the three year old college student, killed his mother victim, and the presence or absence of consent. by shooting her in the head three times. Warned The act itself may be one of commission or one of by the police that he did not have to make a omission. The former, which is the concern of this statement, Waskin allegedly said, "It's obvious, paper, is at the present time some degree of crimi- I killed her." He was arrested and charged with nal homicideA murder.' Waskin's act, however, was a special There are three reasonably identifiable groups type-a type that has troubled and perplexed both against, or for whom euthanasia may be com- laymen and legal theorists.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcquiston, Terence
    by Terence McQuiston M.D. A FRESH PROPOSAL FOR EUTHANASIA LEGISLATION IN CANADA Here follows first an preface concerning my political experience with legalized euthanasia, then the summary of my proposal for the new legislation, and then the full text of my proposal for the new legislation with appendices. PREFACE: MY EXPERIENCE IN THE POLITICS OF LEGALIZED EUTHANASIA I am very familiar with the Dutch experience of legalized euthanasia, and have studied the issues around legalizing euthanasia over the years, involving myself politically during the 2009-2010 debate on BQ MP Francine Lalonde's bill to legalize physician-assisted suicide. As in Canada, legal euthanasia had its impetus in the Netherlands not by a decision of parliament but by a 1984 Supreme Court judgment overruling the criminal code prohibition of the practice. Thus, the Netherlands have had a 31 year head start on Canada, providing Canadians the opportunity to learn from and hopefully avoid their mistakes both in the legislation and the practice of euthanasia. At the time of the Lalonde bill's debate, I had correspondence with my Liberal MP, Michelle Simson, concerning the bill and Ms. Simson's involvement with the subsequent parliamentary committee on palliative care. In the course of this work, I networked through my physician contacts in the Netherlands to learn more about the Dutch experience of euthanasia, and helped a Dutch professor of biomedical ethics write an open letter to Canadians—and especially to MPs— on the challenges of attempting to contain the practice of euthanasia by legal regulations. (See Appendix A, "Legislating Euthanasia: Lessons from the Dutch Experience, March 2010".) In 2014, I traveled to Rotterdam and Utrecht to learn more and had an hour-long interview with Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Physician-Assisted Death, Dementia, and Euthanasia: Using an Advanced Directive to Facilitate the Desires of Those with Impending Memory Loss Katie Franklin
    Idaho Law Review Volume 51 | Number 2 Article 6 March 2019 Physician-Assisted Death, Dementia, and Euthanasia: Using an Advanced Directive to Facilitate the Desires of Those with Impending Memory Loss Katie Franklin Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/idaho-law-review Recommended Citation Katie Franklin, Physician-Assisted Death, Dementia, and Euthanasia: Using an Advanced Directive to Facilitate the Desires of Those with Impending Memory Loss, 51 Idaho L. Rev. 547 (2019). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/idaho-law-review/vol51/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Idaho Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED DEATH, DEMENTIA, AND EUTHANASIA: USING AN ADVANCED DIRECTIVE TO FACILITATE THE DESIRES OF THOSE WITH IMPENDING MEMORY LOSS TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 547 II. THE STRUGGLE OF DEMENTIA ............................................................ 549 A. The Palliative Care Option ................................................................. 550 B. Physician-Assisted Death ................................................................... 551 i. Legalization ................................................................................... 552 III. HISTORY OF PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED
    [Show full text]
  • Murder, She Wrote Or Was It Merely Selective Nontreatment?
    Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy (1985-2015) Volume 8 Issue 1 Article 8 1992 Murder, She Wrote or Was It Merely Selective Nontreatment? George P. Smith II Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/jchlp Recommended Citation George P. Smith II, Murder, She Wrote or Was It Merely Selective Nontreatment?, 8 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol'y 49 (1992). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/jchlp/vol8/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy (1985-2015) by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MURDER, SHE WROTE OR WAS IT MERELY SELECTIVE NONTREATMENT? George P. Smith, II* INTRODUCTION It has been estimated conservatively that the number of cases each year of severely handicapped infants being denied life-saving medical treatment is approximately 5000;' this estimate is derived from a raw statistic from The National Center for Health Statistics revealing that 140,000 babies were born suffering from some type of physical abnormality, mental retardation, or learning disability.2 Another source estimates that one out of every twenty babies is born with some type of discernible genetic deficiency3 and that of all chronic diseases, between twenty and twenty-five percent are * B.S., J.D., Indiana University; LL.M., Columbia University; Professor of Law, Catho- lic University of America. 1. See Carlton Sherwood, 'Baby Doe' is Dividing the Medical Community, WASH. TIMES, July 9, 1984, at 5A.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Legality and Morality of Physician-Assisted Suicide
    Scholars Crossing SOR Faculty Publications and Presentations Spring 1995 On the Legality and Morality of Physician-Assisted Suicide David J. Baggett Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sor_fac_pubs Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Comparative Methodologies and Theories Commons, Epistemology Commons, Esthetics Commons, Ethics in Religion Commons, History of Philosophy Commons, History of Religions of Eastern Origins Commons, History of Religions of Western Origin Commons, Other Philosophy Commons, Other Religion Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Baggett, David J., "On the Legality and Morality of Physician-Assisted Suicide" (1995). SOR Faculty Publications and Presentations. 156. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sor_fac_pubs/156 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in SOR Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ON THE LEGALITY AND MORALITY OF PHYSICIAN-AsSISTED SUICIDE DAVID J. BAGGETT There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. - Albert Camus In the state of Michigan, a battle is raging over the activity of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. A former pathologist, he began medically assisting suicides in 1990 to enable suffering, terminally ill patients to end their lives. In March 1993, the Michigan state legislature banned assisted suicides, a law specifically aimed at Kevorkian. What is happening in Michigan, largely inspired by the furor sur­ rounding "Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of Euthanasia in India
    Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930 A STUDY OF EUTHANASIA IN INDIA GAURAV GOEL LAW COLLEGE DEHRADUN, UTTARANCHAL UNIVERSITY, UTTARAKHAND, INDIA EMAIL [email protected] ABSTRACT: One of the basic Human Rights is Right to life. It starts from the time of origin in the mother's womb till death of the individual. It means not only living with dignity, but also dying with dignity. This right has been recognised by many countries and they have taken steps to ease and preserve the dignity of a dying person. In Indian Courts at various instances question have arised. In M S Dubal vs State of Maharahstra, where a police constable who met with an accident which caused head injury leading to mental illness, tried to commit suicide by pouring kerosene and setting himself on fire and hence, charged for attempt to suicide, the Bombay High Court held that "Right to Life" includes the "Right to death". However, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Chenna Jagadeswar & Anr. vs State of Andhra Pradesh, where, the accused was convicted for killing his 4 children and wife, and then both trying to commit suicide; said that the Right to Life does not include the right to die, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court have dealt with this question in various judgements from 1994 onwards, and finally, acknowledged that the right to life does include, in some special circumstances, the right to die, in its landmark judgement .We will discuss the status of Euthanasia in our country, in the light of the said judgement - popularly known as the Aruna Shanbaug Case.
    [Show full text]