Euthanasia Outline

euthanasiathe intentional killing by act or omission of a dep break offent human being for his or her alleged benefit. (The key devise here is intentional. If closing is not intended, it is not an act of euthanasia) un squeeze euthanasiaWhen the person who is killed has requested to be killed. Non-voluntaryWhen the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent. Involuntary euthanasiaWhen the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the contrary. assist felo-de-seSomeone provides an individualistic with the information, guidance, and means to strike his or her knowledge intent with the intention that they pull up stakes be apply for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps an separate person to kill themselves it is called physician aided suicide. euthanasia By ActionIntentionally create a persons death by performing an action much(prenominal) as by big a lethal injection. Euthanasia By OmissionIntentionally causing death by not providing nece ssary and ordinary (usual and customary) sh be or food and water. 1. Unbearable disoblige as the reason for euthanasia in all likelihood the major strain in favor of euthanasia is that the person involved is in dandy perturb. Today, advances are constantly being made in the treatment of nuisance and, as they advance, the lineament for euthanasia/assisted-suicide is proportionally weakened. Euthanasia advocates stress the cases of impossible disturb as reasons for euthanasia, further then they soon include adrugged state. I guess that is in case virtually no un prevailled pain cases put up be found then they base say those people are drugged into a no-pain state but they need to be euthanasiaed from such a state beca routine it is not dignified.See the scuttle for the slippery face? How do you measure dignity? No it will be euthanasia on demand. The pro-euthanasia folks have already started down the slope. They are even now not stoping with unbearable pain they are al rady including this drugged state and other circumstances. Nearly all pain can be eliminated and in those rare cases where it cant be eliminated it can simmer down be reduced significantly if proper treatment is provided. It is a discipline and international scandal that so many people do not get adequate pain control. But killing is not the get outant to that scandal.The solution is to mandate better education of health care professionals on these crucial issues, to expand access to health care, and to inform patients about their rights as consumers. E preciseone whether it be a person with a life-threatening illness or a chronic condition has the right to pain relief. With modern advances in pain control, no patient should ever be in agonizing pain. However, most doctors have never had a course in pain management so theyre unaware of what to do. If a patient who is under a doctors care is in excruciating pain, theres definitely a need to attend a different doctor.But th at doctor should be one who will control the pain, not one who will kill the patient. There are come along certified specialists in pain management who will not alone help alleviate physical pain but are masterful in providing necessary ache to deal with emotional suffering and falloff that often accompanies physical pain. 2. Demanding a right to commit suicideProbably the second most common point pro-euthanasia people bring up is this so-called right. But what we are talking about is not great(p) a right to the person who is killed, but to the person who does the killing. In other words, euthanasia isnot about the right to die.Its about the right to kill. Euthanasia is not about giving rights to the person who dies but, instead, is about changing the rectitude and public policy so that doctors, relatives and others can directly and intentionally end some other persons life. People do have the power to commit suicide. felo-de-se and attempted suicide are not criminalized. self-annihilation is a tragic, individual act. Euthanasia is not about a private act. Its about permit one person facilitate the death of another. That is a matter of actually public uphold since it can lead to tremendous abuse, exploitation and wear of care for the most vulnerable people among us. . Should people be forced to stay alive? No. And neither the law nor medical ethics requires that e realthing be make to keep a person alive. Insistence, against the patients wishes, that death be postponed by every means available is contrary to law and practice. It would in any case be cruel and inhumane. There comes a time when referd attempts to mend are not compassionate, wise, or medically sound. Thats where hospice, including in-home hospice care, can be of such help. That is the time when all efforts should be placed on making the patients be time comfortable.Then, all interventions should be directed to alleviating pain and other symptoms as hearty as to the provision of emotional and spiritual support for both the patient and the patients loved ones. 14th through 20th Century incline Common truth (Excerpt is from the U. S. compulsive dally thought in the 1997 chapiter v. Glucksberg opinion written by promontory justice Rehnquist. ) More specifically, for all over 700 years, the Anglo American common law tradition has punished or other than disapproved of both suicide and assisting suicide. pic 19th Century United States (Excerpt is from the U. S. Supreme Court ruling in the 1997 Washington v.Glucksberg opinion written by head Justice Rehnquist. ) That suicide remained a grievous, though nonfelonious, wrong is confirmed by the fact that colonial and early state legislatures and courts did not retreat from prohibiting assisting suicide. Swift, in his early 19th century treatise on the laws of Connecticut, stated that if one counsels another to commit suicide, and the other by reason of the advice kills himself, the advisor is guilty of tally as principal. 2 Z. Swift, A Digest of the Laws of the State of Connecticut 270 (1823). This was the well established common law view, see In re Joseph G. 34 Cal. 3d 429, 434-435, 667 P. 2d 1176, 1179 (1983) Commonwealth v. Mink, 123 Mass. 422, 428 (1877) (Now if the murder of ones self is felony, the improver is equally guilty as if he had aided and abetted in the murder) (quoting Chief Justice Parkers charge to the jury in Commonwealth v. Bowen, 13 Mass. 356 (1816)), as was the similar principle that the consent of a homicide victim is wholly deaf(p) to the guilt of the person who caused his death, 3 J. Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England 16 (1883) see 1 F. Wharton, Criminal Law 451-452 (9th ed. 1885) Martin v.Commonwealth, 184 Va. 1009, 1018-1019, 37 S. E. 2d 43, 47 (1946) ( The right to life and to personal security is not further sacred in the estimation of the common law, but it is inalienable ). And the prohibitions against assisting suicide never c ontained exceptions for those who were near death. Rather, the life of those to whom life had become a burdenof those who were hopelessly diseased or fatally woundednay, even the lives of criminals condemned to death, were under the auspices of law, equally as the lives of those who were in the full tide of lifes enjoyment, and anxious to continue to live. blackenburn v. State, 23 Ohio St. 146, 163 (1872) see Bowen, supra, at 360 (prisoner who persuaded another to commit suicide could be tried for murder, even though victim was scheduled shortly to be executed). pic 1828 Earliest American statute explicitly to illegalise assisting suicide (Excerpt is from the U. S. Supreme Court ruling in the 1997 Washington v. Glucksberg opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist. ) The earliest American statute explicitly to outlaw assisting suicide was enacted in innovative York in 1828, Act of Dec. 10, 1828, ch. 20, 4, 1828 N.Y. Laws 19 (codified at 2 N. Y. Rev. Stat. pt. 4, ch. 1, tit. 2 , art. 1, 7, p. 661 (1829)), and many of the new States and Territories followed New Yorks example. Marzen 73-74. Between 1857 and 1865, a New York commission led by Dudley Field drafted a criminal reckon that prohibited aiding a suicide and, specifically, furnishing another person with any mortal weapon or poisonous drug, knowing that such person intends to use such weapon or drug in taking his own life. Id. , at 76-77. pic 20th Century United States (Excerpt is from the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the 1997 Washington v. Glucksberg opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist. ) Though deeply rooted, the States assisted suicide bans have in new-fangled years been reexamined and, generally, reaffirmed. Because of advances in medicine and technology, Americans today are increasingly liable(predicate) to die in institutions, from chronic illnesses. Presidents Commn for the Study of Ethical Problems in medication and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Deciding to Forego Life Sust aining Treatment 16-18 (1983).Public concern and democratic action are therefore sharply focused on how best to protect dignity and independence at the end of life, with the result that there have been many significant changes in state laws and in the attitudes these laws reflect. Many States, for example, now permit living wills, surrogate health care decisionmaking, and the withdrawal or refusal of life sustaining medical treatment. See Vacco v. Quill, post, at 9-11 79 F. 3d, at 818-820 People v. Kevorkian, 447 Mich. 436, 478-480, and nn. 53-56, 527 N. W. 2d 714, 731-732, and nn. 53-56 (1994).At the same time, however, voters and legislators continue for the most break open to reaffirm their States prohibitions on assisting suicide. pic 1920 The book Permitting the Destruction of Life not magna cum laude of Life was published. In this book, authors Alfred Hoche, M. D. , a professor of psychiatry at the University of Freiburg, and Karl Binding, a professor of law from the Univers ity of Leipzig, argued that patients who ask for death assistance should, under very carefully controlled conditions, be able to obtain it from a physician. This book helped support involuntary euthanasia by Nazi Germany. pic 935 The Euthanasia Society of England was create to promote euthanasia. pic1939 Nazi Germany (From The History Place web site) In October of 1939 amid the din of the outbreak of war Hitler ordered widespread lenity killing of the inauspicious and disabled. Code named Aktion T 4, the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate life unworthy of life at first focused on newborns and very young children. Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three who showed symptoms of intellectual retardation, physical deformity, or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich wellness Ministry. The Nazi euthanasia program quickly expanded to include erstwhile(a) disabled children and adults. Hitlers decree of October, 1939, typed on his pe rsonal stationery and back go out to Sept. 1, enlarged the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death. pic1995 Australias Northern Territory approved a euthanasia bill It went into military issue in 1996 and was overturned by the Australian Parliament in 1997. pic 1998 U. S. tate of operating theatre legalizes assisted suicide pic 1999 Dr. Jack Kevorkian sentenced to a 10-25 year prison name for giving a lethal injection to Thomas Youk whose death was shown on the 60 Minutes television program. pic 2000 The Netherlands legalizes euthanasia. pic 2002 Belgium legalizes euthanasia. pic 2008 U. S. state of Washington legalizes assisted suicide Arguments For Euthanasia It provides a way to relieve extreme pain It provides a way of relief when a persons quality of life is low Frees up medical funds to help other people It is another case of freedom of choiceArguments Against Euthanasia Euthanasia devalues human life Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment Physicians and other medical care people should not be involved in directly causing death There is a slippery slope effect that has occurred where euthanasia has been first been legalized for only the terminally ill and by and by laws are changed to allow it for other people or to be done non-voluntarily. Places in the founding Where Euthanasia or back up Suicide are Legal Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg , Oregon and Washington ORGANIZATIONS AGAINST EUTHANASIA Canada lenienceate healthcare Network (BC, Canada) Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (Ontario, Canada) First transnational Symposium on Euthanasia and aid Suicide (2007) US International Task forte on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide ADAPT (People with disabilities) (Illinois, USA) Nightingale bond paper The Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics List of Disability Groups oppose Assisted Suicide The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund True Compassion Advocates Californians Against Assisted Suicide (2007) CURE (Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia) Views on Euthanasia (Sponsored by CURE) Pro-life Movement Increasingly Takes on Assisted Suicide Black Americans for Life Wisconsin Right to Life Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia rascal Pro-Life Colleges and Seminaries Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund TASHs Resolution Opposing the Legalization of Assisted Suicide Disability Groups Opposing Physician Assisted Suicide List of Some Groups Opposing Physician Assisted Suicide Largest U. S. Organization of Latin Americans Opposes Assisted Suicide (2006) Symposium on Opposing Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (2007) Lifeissues. nets Euthanasia Articles (2008) Life TreeUK Care Not cleansing First Do No Harm (By Doctors in the UK) ALERT (UK) British Section of the World Federation of Doct ors Who Respect compassionate Life World World Youth Alliance supports the Duke of Luxembourgs Decision to shun Euthanasia Legislation (2008) International Euthanasia Symposium Held in Virginia, USA (2009) scrap International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, Virginia, USA (2009) First International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, Toronto, Canada (2007) World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life ORGANIZATIONS FOR EUTHANASIA-Right To Die Organizations