Euthanasia Outline

euthanasiathe intentional killing by act or omission of a subordinate human being for his or her alleged benefit. (The key word here is intentional. If cobblers last is non intended, it is not an act of mercy killing) Voluntary euthanasiaWhen the soulfulness who is killed has requested to be killed. no.-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. aid self-annihilationSome single provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they go forth be used for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps an otherwise person to kill themselves it is called physician assisted self-destruction. euthanasia By ActionIntentionally causing a persons stopping point by performing an action such as by giving a lethal injection. Euthanasia By OmissionIntentionally causing final stage by not providi ng necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care or food and water. 1. Unbearable inconvenience as the earth for euthanasiaProbably the major argument in favor of euthanasia is that the person involved is in slap-up ail. Today, advances are constantly being made in the treatment of pain and, as they advance, the case for euthanasia/assisted- self-annihilation is proportionally weakened. Euthanasia advocates stress the cases of unbearable pain as reasons for euthanasia,but then they soon hold adrugged state. I guess that is in case virtually no uncontrolled pain cases put forward be found then they roll in the hay say those nation are drugged into a no-pain state but they collect to be euthanasiaed from such a state because it is not dignified.See the opening for the slimed slope? How do you measure dignity? No it will be euthanasia on lease. The pro-euthanasia folks stupefy already started down the slope. They are even now not stoping with unbearable pain they are alrady including this drugged state and other circumstances. N earlier all pain can be avoidd and in those rare cases where it cant be eliminated it can still be reduced significantly if proper treatment is provided. It is a national and international scandal that so umpteen people do not get fitted pain control. But killing is not the answer to that scandal.The solution is to mandate better education of wellness care professionals on these crucial issues, to expand access to health care, and to inform patients about their mightys as consumers. Everyone whether it be a person with a life-threatening illness or a chronic condition has the springful to pain relief. With modern advances in pain control, no patient should ever be in torturesome pain. However, most doctors have never had a course in pain management so theyre incognizant of what to do. If a patient who is under a doctors care is in excruciating pain, theres definitely a need to find a different doctor.But that doctor should be one who will control the pain, not one who will kill the patient. There are board certified specialists in pain management who will not only help alleviate physical pain but are skilled in providing necessary support to deal with randy suffering and depression that often accompanies physical pain. 2. Demanding a aright to commit suicideProbably the second most third estate point pro-euthanasia people bring up is this so-called right. But what we are talking about is not giving 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 start.Its about the right to kill. Euthanasia is not about giving rights to the person who dies but, instead, is about changing the law and public polity so that doctors, relatives and others can directly and intentionally end another persons life. tribe do have the power to commit suicide. self-destruction and attempted suicide are not criminalized. self-des truction is a tragic, individual act. Euthanasia is not about a private act. Its about letting one person facilitate the death of another. That is a matter of very public concern since it can lead to tremendous abuse, exploitation and corroding 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 everything be done 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 also be ferocious and inhumane. There comes a quantify when continued attempts to cure 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 remaining time comfortable.Then, all interventions should be directed to alleviating pain and other symptoms as advantageously as to the provi sion of emotional and spiritual support for both the patient and the patients loved ones. 14th through 20th Century slope Common Law (Excerpt is from the U. S. Supreme Court ruling in the 1997 majuscule v. Glucksberg touch sensation written by Chief Justice Rehnquist. ) More specifically, for over 700 years, the Anglo American common law tradition has punished or otherwise dis approve of both suicide and assisting suicide. pic 19th Century United States (Excerpt is from the U. S. Supreme Court ruling in the 1997 uppercase v.Glucksberg opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist. ) That suicide remained a grievous, though nonfelonious, misuse 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 murder 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) province v. Mink, 123 Mass. 422, 428 (1877) (Now if the murder of ones self is felony, the accessory 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 teaching that the consent of a homicide victim is wholly immaterial to the guilt of the person who caused his death, 3 J. Stephen, A chronicle 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 only sacred in the estimation of the common law, but it is inalienable ). And the prohibitions against assisting suicide never contained ex ceptions for those who were near death. Rather, the life of those to whom life had become a burdenof those who were dispiritedly diseased or fatally woundednay, even the lives of criminals condemned to death, were under the protection of law, equally as the lives of those who were in the full tide of lifes enjoyment, and anxious to continue to live. Blackburn 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 outlaw 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 modern 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 autograph that prohibited aiding a suicide and, specifically, furnishing another person with any deadly weapon or injurious drug, knowing that such person intends to use such weapon or drug in victorious 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 recent years been reexamined and, generally, reaffirmed. Because of advances in medicine and technology, Americans today are increasingly likely to die in institutions, from chronic illnesses. Presidents Commn for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Deciding to antecede feeling Sustaining Treatment 16-18 (19 83).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 part to reaffirm their States prohibitions on assisting suicide. pic 1920 The book Permitting the Destruction of Life not Worthy 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 University of Leipzig, argued that patients who a sk for death assistance should, under very carefully controlled conditions, be able to incur 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 turmoil of the outbreak of war Hitler logical widespread mercy killing of the sick and handicapped. 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 ask to register children up to age three who showed symptoms of mental retardation, physical deformity, or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich Health Ministry. The Nazi euthanasia program quickly expanded to include older disabled children and adults. Hitlers decree of October, 1939, typed on his personal stationery and back dated 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 effect in 1996 and was overturned by the Australian Parliament in 1997. pic 1998 U. S. tate of Oregon legalizes assisted suicide pic 1999 Dr. Jack Kevorkian sentenced to a 10-25 year prison term 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 guidance 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 Euthanasi a 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 catchy slope effect that has occurred where euthanasia has been first been legalized for only the terminally ill and later laws are changed to vacate it for other people or to be done non-voluntarily. Places in the World Where Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide are Legal Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg , Oregon and Washington ORGANIZATIONS AGAINST EUTHANASIA Canada Compassionate Healthcare net income (BC, Canada) Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (Ontario, Canada) First International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide (2007) US International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide ADAPT (People with disabilities) (Illinois, USA) Nightingale conjunction The Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics List of Disability Groups Opposing Assisted Suicide The Disability ri ghtfields teaching and Defense stemma 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 Page 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 killing First Do No Harm (By Doctors in the UK) ALERT (UK) British Section of the World federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life World World Youth Alliance supports the Duke of Luxem bourgs ratiocination to Veto Euthanasia Legislation (2008) International Euthanasia Symposium Held in Virginia, USA (2009) Second International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, Virginia, USA (2009) First International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, Toronto, Canada (2007) World confederation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life ORGANIZATIONS FOR EUTHANASIA-Right To Die Organizations