Why mercy killing is wrong




















But consider this case:. An aunt will inherit lots of money if her five-year-old nephew dies. She plans to drown him in the bathtub and make it look like an accident. She opens the bathroom door and is delighted to see that he has slipped in the bathtub and is drowning. She watches, ready to push him under if he steadies himself and saves his own life.

But, as her luck would have it, he drowns; she never touches him throughout the ordeal. She inherits the money. And letting someone die can be as bad , or nearly as bad , and perhaps sometimes even worse than killing someone [7] : indeed, a way to kill someone is to let them die. So these distinctions are, at least, not clear. A final concern is that especially if active euthanasia were allowed, some people could be wrongfully killed.

This is possible: some people might wrongfully break potentially good rules. But we cannot ignore that if euthanasia is not allowed, it might be that some people could be wrongly kept alive. Which wrong is more likely? Which wrong is worse?

None of us knows what will happen to us: at any time, an accident or illness might force these issues upon us, and so we should engage them more deeply, now. There are other types of euthanasia though. Non-voluntary euthanasia involves an individual who neither wants to die nor wants to live, e. First, it could happen that someone said that, if they were to fall into a permanent coma, they would very much want their body to be kept alive for as long as possible, but nobody knows this is what they wanted: if they are euthanized, is that in voluntary or non -voluntary?

These cases are unclear, given the characterizations above, as are further possibilities of someone who wants to die but nobody knows that and someone who wants to live but nobody can tell. Non-human animals who are judged to have a poor quality of life due to serious health problems are often actively euthanasized: is this best considered a form of non-voluntary euthanasia, or potentially a different type of voluntary euthanasia? Death and Bereavement in Islam.

Euthanasia: An Islamic Ethical Perspective. Iran J Allergy Asthma Immunol , 6 5 : 35— Euthanasia Qatl al-rahma. JIMA , 39 : — Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences , 6 5 : — Euthanasia and the value of life. In: Euthanasia Examined — ethical, clinical and legal perspectives.

Keown J, Cambridge, pp. Religiousviewson active euthanasia. Euthanasia: from ethical debate to clinical reality. Eur Respir J , 40 4 : — Int J Med Med Sci , 4 6 : — Euthanasia in Iranian Criminal System. Right to life and privileged murders. Serbian [ Google Scholar ] Turanjanin V Moral inadmissibility differentiation of active and passive euthanasia. In: Service Law. Faculty of Law, University of Kragujevac, Serbia, pp.

Positive legal regulation of some specific medical service in the United States — physician assisted suicide. Euthanasia in the Netherlands: the Legal Framework. Deference to Doctors in Dutch Euthanasia Law. Emory International Law Review , 10 : — Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide. Nys H Euthanasia in the Low Countries — A comparative analysis of the law regarding euthanasia in Belgium and Netherlands. Ethical Perspectives , 9 2—3 : 73— Euthanasia and the Criminal Justice System. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law , 11 3 : 1— The Development of Euthanasia in the Netherlands.

Eur J Health Law , 8 2 : — Dutch doctors complain about long wait for judgments in cases of euthanasia. Mercy killing and assisted suicide — insight on the solutions in law in countries which decriminalized them. Herald of Law , 3 2 : 15— Assisted death and the slippery slope — finding clarity amid advocacy, convergence, and complexity. Shariff M Health Law Can , 31 4 : 81— Issues in Law and Medicine , 18 3 : — Regional euthanasia review committees, Annual report Cohen-Almagor R Belgian euthanasia law: a critical analysis.

J Med Ethics , 35 7 : — Exploring the Potential for American Death Tourism. Death with dignity in Belgium. White H Support Center Support Center. External link. New South Wales: Federation Press; Intensive Care Med.

Med J Aust. Euthanasia and assisted suicide: A liberal approach versus the traditional moral view. Legalised euthanasia will violate the rights of vulnerable patients. Nargus is passionate about writing on topics that are relevant to the practice of medicine and aims to incorporate medical journalism in her future career as a doctor. Introduction The topic of euthanasia is one that is shrouded with much ethical debate and ambiguity. Arguments for and against euthanasia There are many arguments that have been put forward for and against euthanasia.

For Rights-based argument Advocates of euthanasia argue that a patient has the right to make the decision about when and how they should die, based on the principles of autonomy and self-determination. Conflicts of interest None declared. Correspondence N Ebrahimi: nargus. Ethical decisions in end-of-life care. The dutch euthanasia act and related issues. When self-determination runs amok. Hastings Cent Rep. Active and passive euthanasia.

And this means that we shouldn't end our lives just because it seems the most effective way of putting an end to our suffering. To do that is not to respect our inherent worth. Many people worry that if voluntary euthanasia were to become legal, it would not be long before involuntary euthanasia would start to happen. We concluded that it was virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly voluntary and that any liberalisation of the law in the United Kingdom could not be abused.

We were also concerned that vulnerable people - the elderly, lonely, sick or distressed - would feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death. This is called the slippery slope argument. In general form it says that if we allow something relatively harmless today, we may start a trend that results in something currently unthinkable becoming accepted.

Those who oppose this argument say that properly drafted legislation can draw a firm barrier across the slippery slope. If we change the law and accept voluntary euthanasia, we will not be able to keep it under control. The Nazis engaged in massive programmes of involuntary euthanasia, so we shouldn't place our trust in the good moral sense of doctors. Allowing voluntary euthanasia makes it easier to commit murder, since the perpetrators can disguise it as active voluntary euthanasia.

Many are needlessly condemned to suffering by the chief anti-euthanasia argument: that murder might lurk under the cloak of kindness. Some people fear that allowing euthanasia sends the message, "it's better to be dead than sick or disabled".

The subtext is that some lives are not worth living. Not only does this put the sick or disabled at risk, it also downgrades their status as human beings while they are alive.

Part of the problem is that able-bodied people look at things from their own perspective and see life with a disability as a disaster, filled with suffering and frustration. Some societies have regarded people with disabilities as inferior, or as a burden on society.

Those in favour of eugenics go further, and say that society should prevent 'defective' people from having children. Others go further still and say that those who are a burden on society should be eliminated. Supporters of euthanasia would respond that this argument includes a number of completely misleading suggestions, and refute them:. A serious problem for supporters of euthanasia are the number of cases in which a patient may ask for euthanasia, or feel obliged to ask for it, when it isn't in their best interest.

Some examples are listed below:. Supporters of euthanasia say these are good reasons to make sure the euthanasia process will not be rushed, and agree that a well-designed system for euthanasia will have to take all these points into account. They say that most of these problems can be identified by assessing the patient properly, and, if necessary, the system should discriminate against the opinions of people who are particularly vulnerable.

Chochinov and colleagues found that fleeting or occasional thoughts of a desire for death were common in a study of people who were terminally ill, but few patients expressed a genuine desire for death. Will to live in the terminally ill. Lancet ; They also found that the will to live fluctuates substantially in dying patients, particularly in relation to depression, anxiety, shortness of breath, and their sense of wellbeing.

Euthanasia is usually viewed from the viewpoint of the person who wants to die, but it affects other people too, and their rights should be considered. Palliative care is physical, emotional and spiritual care for a dying person when cure is not possible. It includes compassion and support for family and friends. Competent palliative care may well be enough to prevent a person feeling any need to contemplate euthanasia. You matter because you are you.

You matter to the last moment of your life and we will do all we can to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die. The key to successful palliative care is to treat the patient as a person, not as a set of symptoms, or medical problems. The World Health Organisation states that palliative care affirms life and regards dying as a normal process; it neither hastens nor postpones death; it provides relief from pain and suffering; it integrates the psychological and spiritual aspects of the patient.

The patient's family and friends will need care too.



0コメント

  • 1000 / 1000