Illegality Of Euthansia

THE CONCEPT OF EUTHANASIA

Euthanasia (from Greek: `good death`: , eu `well, good` + , thanatos `death`) is the practice of intentionally ending life to relieve pain and suffering.[1][2]

Different countries have different euthanasia laws. The British House of Lords select committee on medical ethics defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering".[3] In the Netherlands and Belgium, euthanasia is understood as "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient".[4] The Dutch law, however, does not use the term `euthanasia` but includes the concept under the broader definition of "assisted suicide and termination of life on request".[5]

CATEGORIES OF EUTHANASIA AND THEIR ETHICO-LEGAL STATUS/IMPLICATION

Euthanasia is broadly grouped in to three(3) viz

(a) Voluntary euthanasia: as the name implies is when a dying/terminally ill individual accent to end his/ her life especially when he/ she is in a conscious state.

(b) Non-voluntary euthanasia (patient`s consent unavailable) : Where the parties i.e the person affected, individuals who are legally authorized to decide on his/ her behalf are incapacitated to take such decision. This make it legal in some countries under certain limited conditions, in both active and passive forms.

Involuntary euthanasia (without asking consent or against the patient`s will) is illegal in all countries and is usually considered murder.

Euthanasia is an active area of research in bioethics.[7] In some countries divisive public controversy occurs over the moral, ethical, and legal issues associated with euthanasia. Passive euthanasia (known as "pulling the plug") is legal under some circumstances in many countries. Active euthanasia, however, is legal or de facto legal in only a handful of countries (for example: Belgium, Canada and Switzerland), which limit it to specific circumstances and require the approval of counselors and doctors or other specialists. In some countries - such as Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - support for active euthanasia is almost non-existence.[6]

ANALOGICAL DEDUCTIONS WHY EUTHANASIA SHOULD BE ABOLISHED

According to euthanasia opponent Ezekiel Emanuel, proponents of euthanasia have presented four main arguments:

(a) that people have a right to self-determination, and thus should be allowed to choose their own fate

(b) assisting a subject to die might be a better choice than requiring that they continue to suffer

(c) the distinction between passive euthanasia, which is often permitted, and active euthanasia, which is not substantive (or that the underlying principle the doctrine of double effect is unreasonable or unsound) and

(d) permitting euthanasia will not necessarily lead to unacceptable consequences.

Similarly, Emanuel argues that there are four major arguments presented by opponents of euthanasia:

(a) not all deaths are painful

(b) alternatives, such as cessation of active treatment, combined with the use of effective pain relief, are available

(c) the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is morally significant and d) legalising euthanasia will place society on a slippery slope,[53] which will lead to unacceptable consequences.[8] In fact, in Oregon, in 2013, pain wasn`t one of the top five reasons people sought euthanasia. Top reasons were a loss of dignity, and a fear of burdening others.[9]

REFERENCES

1. Worldrtd.net. Archived from the original on 5 August 2017. Retrieved 6 July 2017. Philosopher Helga Kuhse: "`Euthanasia` is a compound of two Greek words eu and thanatos meaning, literally, `a good death`. Today, `euthanasia` is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death `mercy killing,` where one person, A, ends the life of another person, B, for the sake of B.'

2. "Voluntary Euthanasia". Voluntary Euthanasia (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Plato.stanford.edu. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. 2018. Retrieved 7 May 2019. When a person performs an act of euthanasia, she brings about the death of another person because she believes the latter`s present existence is so bad that he would be better off dead, or believes that unless she intervenes and ends his life, his life will very soon become so bad that he would be better off dead.

3.Harris, NM. (October 2001). "The euthanasia debate". J R Army Med Corps. 147 (3): 367 70. doi:10.1136/jramc-147-03-22. PMID 11766225.

4. Euthanasia and assisted suicide Archived 19 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine BBC. Last reviewed June 2011. Accessed 25 July 2011. Archived from the original

5. Carr, Claudia (2014). Unlocking Medical Law and Ethics (2nd ed.). Routledge. p. 374. ISBN 9781317743514. Retrieved 2 February 2018.

6. Voluntary and involuntary euthanasia Archived 5 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine BBC Accessed 12 February 2012. Archived from the original

7. Borry P, Schotsmans P, Dierickx K (April 2006). "Empirical research in bioethical journals. A quantitative analysis". J Med Ethics. 32 (4): 240 45. doi:10.1136/jme.2004.011478. PMC 2565792. PMID 16574880.

8.Emanuel, Ezekiel (1994). "The history of euthanasia debates in the United States and Britain". Annals of Internal Medicine. 121 (10): 796. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.732.724. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-121-10-199411150-00010. PMID 7944057. S2CID 20754659.

9. "The vulnerable will be the victims: Opposing view". Usatoday.com. Archived from the original on 9 September 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2017.