Are there circumstances in which euthanasia is appropriate

Since pain is the most visible sign of distress of persistent suffering, people with cancer and other life-threatening, chronic conditions will often receive palliative care.

Opioids are commonly used to manage pain and other symptoms. The adverse effects of opioids include drowsiness, nausea, vomiting, and constipation.

They can also be addictive. An overdose can be life-threatening. In many countries, including the U. One argument against euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is the Hippocratic Oath, dating back some 2, years.

All doctors take this oath. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. As the world has changed since the time of Hippocrates, some feel that the original oath is outdated. In some countries, an updated version is used, while in others, for example, Pakistan, doctors still adhere to the original.

As more treatments become available, for example, the possibility of extending life, whatever its quality, is an increasingly complex issue. In , the first anti-euthanasia law in the U. In time, other states followed suit. In the 20th Century, Ezekiel Emmanual, a bioethicist of the American National Institutes of Health NIH said that the modern era of euthanasia was ushered in by the availability of anesthesia.

The Netherlands decriminalized doctor-assisted suicide and loosened some restrictions in In doctor-assisted suicide was approved in Belgium. In the U. These became legal in California in , with other states soon following suit. In the living will, the person states their wishes for medical care, should they become unable to make their own decision. In , voters in Oregon approved the Death with Dignity Act, allowing physicians to assist terminal patients who were not expected to survive more than 6 months.

The Terri Schiavo case galvanized public opinion in Florida and the U. There is also a political and philosophical objection that says that our individual right to autonomy against the state must be balanced against the need to make the sanctity of life an important, intrinsic, abstract value of the state.

Secular philosophers put forward a number of technical arguments, mostly based on the duty to preserve life because it has value in itself, or the importance of regarding all human beings as ends rather than means. Without creating or acknowledging a specific right to die, it is possible to argue that other human rights ought to be taken to include this right. Those in favour of euthanasia will argue that respect for this right not to be killed is sufficient to protect against misuse of euthanasia, as any doctor who kills a patient who doesn't want to die has violated that person's rights.

Opponents of euthanasia may disagree, and argue that allowing euthanasia will greatly increase the risk of people who want to live being killed. The danger of violating the right to life is so great that we should ban euthanasia even if it means violating the right to die.

This is the idea that the rights to privacy and freedom of belief give a person the right to decide how and when to die. This argument is based on the fact that the Suicide Act made it legal for people to take their own lives. Euthanasia opponents further point out that there is a moral difference between decriminalising something, often for practical reasons like those mentioned above, and encouraging it.

They can quite reasonably argue that the purpose of the Suicide Act is not to allow euthanasia, and support this argument by pointing out that the Act makes it a crime to help someone commit suicide.

This is true, but that provision is really there to make it impossible to escape a murder charge by dressing the crime up as an assisted suicide. Opponents attack the libertarian argument specifically by claiming that there are no cases that fit the conditions above:.

This argument has not been put forward publicly or seriously by any government or health authority. It is included here for completeness. As a result, some people who are ill and could be cured are not able to get speedy access to the facilities they need for treatment. At the same time health resources are being used on people who cannot be cured, and who, for their own reasons, would prefer not to continue living.

Allowing such people to commit euthanasia would not only let them have what they want, it would free valuable resources to treat people who want to live. Abuse of this would be prevented by only allowing the person who wanted to die to intitiate the process, and by regulations that rigorously prevented abuse.

This proposal is an entirely pragmatic one; it says that we should allow euthanasia because it will allow more people to be happy. Such arguments will not convince anyone who believes that euthanasia is wrong in principle.

Others will object because they believe that such a proposal is wide-open to abuse, and would ultimately lead to involuntary euthanasia because of shortage of health resources. In the end, they fear, people will be expected to commit euthanasia as soon as they become an unreasonable burden on society. One of the commonly accepted principles in ethics, put forward by Immanuel Kant, is that only those ethical principles that could be accepted as a universal rule i. So you should only do something if you're willing for anybody to do exactly the same thing in exactly similar circumstances, regardless of who they are.

The justification for this rule is hard to find - many people think it's just an obvious truth philosophers call such truths self-evident. You find variations of this idea in many faiths; for example "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

A rule is universalisable if it can consistently be willed as a law that everyone ought to obey. The only rules which are morally good are those which can be universalised.

The person in favour of euthanasia argues that giving everybody the right to have a good death through euthanasia is acceptable as a universal principle, and that euthanasia is therefore morally acceptable. If a person wants to be allowed to commit euthanasia, it would clearly be inconsistent for them to say that they didn't think it should be allowed for other people.

But the principle of universalisability doesn't actually provide any positive justification for anything - genuine moral rules must be universalisable, but universalisability is not enough to say that a rule is a satisfactory moral rule. An important difference with the previously described legislations lies in the fact that physician has to seek prior approval from the National Council in order to perform a euthanasia Deprivation of life from compassion throughout the history of humanity appears as a question that engrosses the attention of lawyers, doctors, sociologists around the worlds.

Bypassing the countries that privilege euthanasia as less serious murder, in this paper we have dealt with some legislations that this phenomenon strictly prohibit, and those that deprivation of life out of compassion treat as a permitted medical procedure. In Islamic countries, such as Iran, Turkey and part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, euthanasia is an ordinary murder, punishable by serious criminal sanctions.

At the opposite pole are the Western European countries, more specifically, the Benelux countries Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg , in which deprivation of life from the grace does not constitute a crime, if it was carried out in accordance with the clearly defined legal rules and medical procedure.

In this way, we show how a life situation may be in different legal areas regulated in completely different way. Exactly this lack of harmony in the legislative solution in some European and American countries has led to the some adverse events, such as death tourism , as a phenomenon where inhabitants of one country, where euthanasia is prohibited, travel to another state where it is allowed, and where physicians can perform euthanasia.

In order to avoid this, it is necessary to achieve a certain degree of harmonization of legislations, or to set appropriate limit in the legislations that legalized euthanasia. However, how it is possible to achieve, time will show.

This work was supported by Faculty of Law, University of Kragujevac. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Iran J Public Health. Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Received May 14; Accepted Jul This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract Background Euthanasia is one of the most intriguing ethical, medical and law issues that marked whole XX century and beginning of the XXI century, sharply dividing scientific and unscientific public to its supporters and opponents.

Keywords: Euthanasia, Murder, Legalization, Legal solutions. Introduction Euthanasia, i. Euthanasia as murder In the world were crystallized three approaches in the legislative regulations of this matter, and we will briefly point out the solutions in some jurisdictions.

Euthanasia in Netherlands The first associations about the Netherlands for many years have been related to the beautiful canals, parks, windmills, rich museums, and unique architecture.

According to the law, euthanasia is permitted upon meeting of the following requirements: The request originates from the patient, and is given free and voluntary; The patient suffers intolerable pain, which cannot be facilitated: Patient is aware of his medical condition and perspectives; Euthanasia is last sanctuary for patients, because there are no other alternative; The doctor, who has to perform an euthanasia, consulted a colleague who has experience in this field, and which has examined a patient and agreed that all conditions are met for euthanasia or assisted suicide, and Euthanasia or assisted suicide is performed with the necessary care Euthanasia in Belgium The idea of legalizing euthanasia in Belgium emerged at the beginning of the 80s of the XX century, in the action of two associations for the right to die with dignity.

Euthanasia in Luxembourg Luxembourg is the third country in Europe which legalized euthanasia, and which legislator brought euthanasia and assisted suicide law on 20 February , and which entered into a force on 16 May year Conclusion Deprivation of life from compassion throughout the history of humanity appears as a question that engrosses the attention of lawyers, doctors, sociologists around the worlds.

References McCall S Euthanasia: The strengths of the middle ground. Med Law Rev , 7 2 : — Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls.

Current Oncology , 18 2 : 38— Current Oncology , 19 3 : — Euthanasialegislation: A rejoinder to the non-religious objections. Downing A. 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 Ethics of euthanasia - introduction. On this page What is Euthanasia? Page options Print this page. What is Euthanasia? The term is derived from the Greek word euthanatos which means easy death.

The ethics of euthanasia Euthanasia raises a number of agonising moral dilemmas: is it ever right to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is undergoing severe pain and suffering? There are also a number of arguments based on practical issues. Killing or letting die Euthanasia can be carried out either by taking actions , including giving a lethal injection, or by not doing what is necessary to keep a person alive such as failing to keep their feeding tube going.

Euthanasia and pain relief It's not euthanasia to give a drug in order to reduce pain, even though the drug causes the patient to die sooner.

Mercy killing Very often people call euthanasia 'mercy killing', perhaps thinking of it for someone who is terminally ill and suffering prolonged, unbearable pain.