But their letter to the President has opened up a new debate in this area. Equally, action and inaction may be deemed morally and legally equivalent in the context of a deliberate failure to carry out the duty of care to save life when clinicians agree that it should be saved.
Discriminatory effect of the laws The ability of the wealthy to travel to countries where it is lawful for the terminally ill to end their lives has the discriminatory impact of treating the haves and have-nots unequally.
In September the Director of Public Prosecutions was forced by an appeal to the House of Lords to make public the criteria that influence whether a person is prosecuted.
However, there still are many sicknesses that not only cannot be cured at present, but also cause incredible suffering to people who have them. Robert Arisz, Amsterdam The ultimate regard for the meaning of life is to allow those who choose to end their lives with dignity.
Therefore, when the continuation of life sustaining treatment is described as being of no benefit or of too much Should euthanasia be allowed, the clinician must already have decided that the life of the incompetent patient in question is not worth living and therefore not worth prolonging.
Such ad hoc decisions suffer from arbitrariness and uncertainty — two qualities that make for bad law. In some developed countries, donations after cardiac deaths are increasing.
Further, the discrepancies in the laws as they exist and how they are being enforced have led to uncertainty. The right to life and the right to private and family life under the European convention on human rights should be interpreted broadly to include decisions about quality of life, including decisions about death if the life is no longer one of quality.
It is not an act of killing or violence. I have not seen such miracles happening in clinical practice. This decision may be consistent with legal precedent but is morally wrong.
When you are in pain, that dignity is lost and you are forced to rely on your kith and kin for support. So euthanasia should not be illegal. The danger is who has the right to it? In the case of terminally ill patients who are provided with expensive health care, whose families know that the patients are unlikely to return to normalcy or near-normalcy, and given the economic burden on the family and on society to treat these patients, euthanasia could be debated.
Suffering Should euthanasia be allowed?
The flip side of that coin is the right to die. You are whole again.
Section of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for attempting suicide. This is why withdrawal of treatment is deemed to be in the best interest of the patient and consistent with the duty of care to protect this interest.
The philosophical case against the philosophical case against euthanasia. There are numerous diseases that modern medicine cannot cure, and which cause severe pain and suffering to patients.
According to social journalist Rupert Taylor, the repeated killing of humans causes people to harm themselves, exhibiting behaviors like drinking excessively or committing suicide.
The courts are yet to come up with an answer. Further, the law should not criminalise people who accompany those who make rational decisions to end their suffering The motion will seek to take the issue forward in a compassionate and fair way that I believe will serve the interests of the terminally ill and our society.
A reversal of the will to die would solve the entire problem. Sinan, United Kingdom I have nothing but sympathy for Mr Humbert, and his mother, and think that in this case the correct course of action has been followed. There is clearly a desire — whether we like it or not — among a number of patients at the end of often terrible battles with debilitating, incurable diseases to end their suffering with the support of their relatives.
Advocates of euthanasia argue that all people, regardless of physical capability, should be able to do what they want with their bodies, including the ability to choose when and how they die. Vincent Humbert was left mute, blind and paralysed after an accident three years ago.
Why euthanasia should be allowed Those in favour of euthanasia argue that a civilised society should allow people to die in dignity and without pain, and should allow others to help them do so if they cannot manage it on their own.
This ambiguity and uncertainty leaves all concerned, including physicians, unprotected.Euthanasia is a much-discussed topic in the UK these days, particularly when people believe that Euthanasia should be legalised.
For some people, the most important question about Euthanasia is "Is it ever right to kill an innocent human being?". Should Legalize Assisted Suicide By Euthanasia By Jacinda Chan | Jan. 18, Two deaf twins were euthanized in Belgium this week for extreme emotional suffering.
Nov 10, · Why active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be legalised Once it is accepted that doctors should be allowed to make clinical decisions to end life passively on the basis of such claims, active euthanasia in the best interests of such patients would be the next logical step.
any coherent advocate of active. Dec 17, · Ethical problems of euthanasia. Does an individual who has no hope of recovery have the right to decide how and when to end their life? Why euthanasia should be allowed. Why we should make euthanasia legal Doctors will today debate the existing laws on euthanasia.
Here Dr Kailash Chand explains the reasons behind his motion for the introduction of new legislation.
Euthanasia Should be Legal Euthanasia is the intentional causing of a painless death. Euthanasia should be legal in every state. It is already legal in some areas and if put to a vote in every state, it most likely would become legal.Download