Select Page

Draper argued that any definition of euthanasia must include four elements: an agent and a subject; an intention; causal proximity, so that the agent`s actions lead to the result; and a result. On this basis, she proposed a definition that includes these elements, stating that euthanasia “must be defined as death resulting from the intention of one person to kill another person by the gentlest and most painless means, motivated solely by the best interests of the person who dies.” [18] Prior to Draper, Beauchamp and Davidson had also proposed a definition that included these elements. Their definition explicitly excludes fetuses to distinguish between abortion and euthanasia:[19] On 6. In January 1949, the Euthanasia Society of America submitted a petition to the New York State legislature to legalize euthanasia, which was signed by 379 prominent Protestant and Jewish ministers, the largest group of religious leaders to ever take this position. A similar petition was sent to the New York legislature in 1947, signed by about 1,000 New York doctors. Roman Catholic religious leaders criticized the petition, saying such a law “legalizes a suicide-murder pact” and a “rationalization of God`s fifth commandment, `Thou shalt not kill.`” [52] The Right Reverend Robert E. McCormick stated that the Second Circuit joined the Ninth in April 1996 and recognized the constitutional protection of euthanasia in Quill because New York laws criminalizing assisted suicide violated the Fourteenth Amendment`s equality clause. However, on 26 June 1997, the United States Supreme Court struck down the Ninth and Second Circuit Courts in Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997) and Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S.

743, 117 S.Ct. 2293, 138 L.Ed.2d 834 (1997). The court ruled that state laws against assisted suicide are not unconstitutional, but also noted that patients are entitled to aggressive treatment for pain and other symptoms, even if the treatment accelerates death. The court wrote: “Across the country, Americans are engaged in a serious and profound debate about the morality, legality, and practicality of physician-assisted suicide. Our holding company allows this debate to continue, as it should be in a democratic society. Imagine that you are suffering from a fatal, debilitating and very painful disease. Should you have the right to die whenever you want instead of living in prolonged agony? Should your doctor be legally free to help you commit suicide, perhaps by prescribing pills and telling you their lethal dose? Or should the law prohibit anyone, including doctors, from aiding the suicide of another person? These are just some of the issues surrounding the issue of medical assistance in dying, an ethical issue that is much debated in modern medicine. There are many possible combinations of the above types, and many types of euthanasia are morally controversial. Some types of euthanasia, such as assisted voluntary forms, are legal in some countries. In January 1936, King George V received a lethal dose of morphine and cocaine to hasten his death. At the time, he was suffering from cardiovascular failure and the decision to end his life was made by his doctor, Lord Dawson. [45] Although this event was kept secret for more than 50 years, George V`s death coincided with a bill in the House of Lords to legalize euthanasia.

[46] In today`s language, euthanasia was defined as “the painless instigation of a quick death.” [10] However, it is argued that this approach does not adequately define euthanasia because it leaves open a number of possible measures that would meet the requirements of the definition, but would not be considered euthanasia. These include situations where one person kills another without pain, but for no reason other than personal gain; or rapid, painless, but unintentional accidental deaths. [11] [12] I think this is an excellent example. For a patient who cannot communicate their desires, you need to ask people who really care about them, know them and what they would like in this situation. Otherwise, mercy killings can turn into murder. Although the question of the existence of a culture of death caused by the number of premature deaths of patients has already been raised in this country, the Royal Netherlands Medical Association (Koninklijke Nederlandsche tot beverdering der Geneeskunst (KNMG)) has recently reiterated, among other things, that the law on the interruption of life must be an exception and not the rule. and that this procedure will never become the norm (32), although a number of doctors do not consider euthanasia to be an extraordinary measure that would require the exercise of social control (33). However, studies show that in the Netherlands, euthanasia is a more accepted way to complete life. Compared to 1975, when 52.6 per cent of the population supported this form of deprivation of life; In 1988, this percentage was 88%. The fact that is particularly interesting considering that the Catholic Church is strongly opposed to euthanasia is that 74% of the Roman Catholic religion support euthanasia (29).

Proponents of this form of deprivation of life believe that the key determinant of this process should be self-determination, as respect for life implies avoiding an undignified death (34). In addition, legal and medical theory states that patients are not afraid of euthanasia, but their greatest fear is that their request for euthanasia will be denied (35). Prison can also be a reality for doctors who help terminally ill patients end their lives in areas where the practice is prohibited. One of the best-known advocates of physician-assisted suicide was the American pathologist Dr. Jack Kevorkian. He allegedly unlawfully contributed to the deaths of more than 100 patients in the United States and was convicted of multiple second-degree murder and sent to prison in the late 1990s. He was released in 2007 after agreeing not to give suicide advice to anyone, after which he appeared on various universities and television talk shows to promote his faith and theories about a patient`s right to die. Robert Ingersoll advocated euthanasia and stated in 1894 that a person suffering from an incurable disease such as terminal cancer should have the right to end their pain by suicide. Felix Adler proposed a similar approach, although Adler, unlike Ingersoll, does not reject religion. In fact, he argued from an ethical cultural framework.

In 1891, Adler argued that those suffering from overwhelming pain should have the right to commit suicide, and that, moreover, a doctor should be allowed to help – making Adler the first “prominent American” to advocate for suicide in cases where people suffered from chronic diseases. [42] Both Ingersoll and Adler advocated voluntary euthanasia of adults with incurable diseases. [42] Dowbiggin argues that by breaking previous moral objections to euthanasia and suicide, Ingersoll and Adler allowed others to broaden the definition of euthanasia. [43] Involuntary euthanasia, on the other hand, is a patient who cannot consent to life-ending measures. Involuntary euthanasia concerns a patient who does not do or resists such measures. Both are illegal in all countries. Wreen, partly in response to Beauchamp and Davidson, proposed a six-part definition: In this part of the state, a solution is defined as a crime that deprives another person`s life and carries a prison sentence of at least five years.