0
Euthanasia
Euthanasia involves deliberately ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition painlessly by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment. Active euthanasia is illegal in most jurisdictions, while passive euthanasia, or the withholding of some life support systems, has legal standing in some jurisdictions. Questions about voluntary or involuntary euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the "right to die" are asked and answered here.
598 Questions
Why you should approve euthanasia?
Because it is killing a human life. Look on Catholic Answers . com to find more ethically correct info.
Certain people feel it is murder because of their religion and yet when we euthanize our pets and we don't view it as murder but as an act of kindness to end their suffering.
What is the age limit to assisted suicide?
Look I don't know I don't think so... but don't commit suicide! It's just going to end up worse in the long run. I just checked... Yep... adult or older in the USA
What the procedure of applying euthanasia?
They give you a lethal injection or they give you pain-relieving pills. It is painless. Being put into a medically induced coma is also a form of euthanasia. One by one your organs begin to fail. That can be quite painful. Suicide or euthanasia by overdosing on pills doesn't work most of the time. Pills now a days have a chemical in them that reacts with the acid in your stomacy if you take too many. As a result, you puke them up. There are many ways to euthanize. Some of the more common ways in the recent past: * Suffocation with a plastic bag, most of the time (but not all of the time) drugging the patient first. * Gassing them to death with carbon monoxide: not even approved for putting down a dog or executing a convicted murderer * Lethal injection, but families are not usually allowed to watch because of the effects of this poison Pills are administered in cases of assisted suicide, not euthanasia. The difference is that when the patient takes pills prescribed by a doctor, they are ending their own life. Many people believe that legalizing full-fledged euthanasia will stop the use of plastic bags and carbon monoxide, but that will simply legitimize their use. Terminally ill patients generally do not die an unbearably painful death. Modern technology has made the passing of millions much less painful than anytime in the past.
Many patients are able to live out their few final days in a drug-induced stupor, relieving them of most pain while leaving them cognizant enough to interact with family. There are cases in which medicine cannot alleviate the majority of the patient's pain, and these are used by proponents of legalizing euthanasia to support their position.
Why does euthanasia cause so much debate?
Because people think that killing is wrong for any reason.
Added: It can be assumed that the questioner is referring to Euthenasia as applied to human beings. If so, SOME people are against it on religious grounds and others are philosophically opposed and are wary of the "slippery slope" argument.
Who was first to legalize euthanasia?
If you believe in the Bible, I suppose you could say that God created euthanasia. He (allegedly) facilitated the deaths of people suffering from an "incurable condition" - corruption and wickedness.
If you don't believe in the Bible, you could still say that the fable of the Ark brought about the idea of a sort of euthanasia, which could have easily developed into the meaning it has today.
This is just a theory, of course.
How does assisted suicide affect society?
Death can affect society because if a large amount of people die - more jobs will be available and if theres not enough people to fufill those jobs , jobs can go out of buisness affecting society.
Where in the US is passive assisted suicide legal?
Assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, Washington, and Montana.
What is euthanasia scientifically?
Euthanasia (from the Greek eu = good + thanatos = death) refers to the practice of ending a life in a painless manner. Many different forms of euthanasia can be distinguished, including animal euthanasia and human euthanasia, and within the latter, voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have been the focus of great controversy in recent years.
How mercy killing relates to justice?
Mercy: to beg and receive forgiveness for a cruel doing.
Justice: the principle that the punishment should be proportionate to the offense.
Who performs passive euthanasia?
Euthanasia can be performed by anyone. Euthenasia is the act of killing someone that has requested that he/she be killed as a result of an illness or for that matter any other reason. It is a word for assisted suicide.
Where does euthanasia take place?
Three states currently allow Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS), which is the term used in place of euthanasia (my guess is because it sounds more medical). Oregon was the first to allow it in 1997, then Washington state in 2008, and most recently the Montana Supreme Court allowed it in 2009. In Washington and Oregon the patient has to be terminally ill, in intractable pain, and not depressed. They are then given a lethal dosage of medicine, which they can take to end their suffering.
What are the moral issues of euthanasia?
The Churches, on good grounds, oppose euthanasia in all circumstances. We all regard life as sacred, whether in the religious or a secular sense. The Church position also helps guard against terminating an elderly person's life out of greed or other improper motives.
Others believe that euthanasia is not only permissible but proper, providing it is voluntary, based on full information, and is restricted to those suffering serious pain and close to death. Like that of the Churches, this view is also understandable and defensible.
What few would support, is assisted suicide for reasons other than to end great suffering of the terminally ill.
OpinionI suggest thatConversely, some situations can constitute ethical dilemmas; that is, there are moral and ethical reasons pointing in opposing directions, because of elements in those situations. (For example, (glossing over the difficulties) euthanasia is done (or not) where there is a moral conflict between • death and • pain plus absence of proper life.)
Even where there is an ethical dilemma, I suggest that this can still be described and quantified. (Of course, it is possible to have an ethical dilemma wherein the result is 50:50.)
Conversely again, it is reasonable to note moral principles that are part of the ethical dilemma of euthanasia, and analyse how much moral weight they have.
I should mention, while I'm here, that it has been accepted medical practice, for many centuries, to not intervene to uselessly prolong the life of someone who was dying. The point is that the current term "euthanasia" is often used in a way that ignores this distinction.
Which country euthanasia not legal?
The Netherlands, and certain states of the United States are two that come to mind.
What are the benefits for legalizing euthanasia?
This is a touchy and controversial issue, and there really are no pros, but there are a lot of cons. The only possible pro would be knowing a loved one was no longer in pain, but consider the following:
For the one who authorized the euthanization of a terminally ill person (or did it themselves), what would the emotional consequences be for them in the long run? Would the guilt eventually get too hard for them to handle? Many of us feel guilty having to have our pet euthanized, even though we know it's the right thing to do, and suffer feelings of guilt long afterwards. Multiply this exponentially and try to imagine the feelings of guilt and remorse that euthanizing a person would evoke.
If this were to be legalized, who is to say some of the "less ethical" wouldn't find a way to use it to have someone "euthanized" who really was not terminally ill, or who actually did have a chance of full recovery (as in a coma)? Greed, especially if there is money involved, as in life insurance, can be a nasty thing.
And a final thought: Even though it may be done with good intentions, it is still taking a life. And since God is the only one who can give life, only God has the right to take that life.
A different view:
To say there are no pros to euthanasia only shows there was no consideration to the opposing side.
First off there are pros to euthanasia. The medical supplies being used on a terminally ill patient could be used for a patient who is more likely to recover. It would also allow the patient to pass on in a dignified and pain free manner. This controlled death would also allow families to say their farewells and allow the family to deal with any "lose ends".
Yes it is possible for an immoral person to euthanize someone against their will, but with strongly enforced regulations this would be prevented. Some patients may choose euthanization simply because they have lost hope which is another reason why there would have to be a strict set of rules that the doctors, patients, and the patient's families would have to abide by.
Rules: The choice to be euthanized must be that of the patients only. There must be a minimum of three witnesses (not including the doctor and one of which must have no personal gain from the person dying) present when the patient makes this decision. There would have to be a waiting time after the patients decision to give the patient some time to contemplate their decision; the patient must give consent to euthanization before and after this period with witnesses present. The patient must be terminally ill and all other methods of treatment should be exhausted before euthanasia becomes an option. Insurance companies cannot stop coverage if a patient refuses euthanization.
Finally I want to comment on an argument left by the previous poster.
"And a final thought: Even though it may be done with good intentions, it is still taking a life. And since God is the only one who can give life, only God has the right to take that life."
This argument is not valid and ultimately boils down to whether god exists or not. I am not here to prove one way or the other but you cannot deny people the right to be euthanized based off of your beliefs, especially when the patients beliefs a different from yours. (I'm sure someone will think or post something like "allowing euthanasia is the same as allowing murder." Well that is just not true. Murder brings zero benefits to humanity where euthanasia does.)
Is their a cure for euthanasia?
Yes. Euthanasia involves killing somebody (more specifically, mercy killing - killing a person because he is suffering). The alternative is not to kill him.
Should assisted suicide be allowed?
Some may argue that it should be. It is your life and you should be able to control it.
But some may argue against it, often for religious reason.
It's down to what you believe.
In many countries, doctors take an oath, such as, the Hippocratic oath once they completed medical school. This statement includes the phrase that the doctor should "do no harm".
+++++ Answer +++++++++
Just want to add something about Do No Harm. What does that mean? Does it mean to extend someone life at whatever the cost in term of financial, emotional, physical pain, ect. If the ultimate definition of harm is death, then sure, suicide should not be assisted by physicians. However, we all know that death is inevitable. Do you want to die your way or drag on and on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, suicide can not be legal issue with or without physician because it can open up a new way of killing. There had been many ways of killing like snake chambers , wolves and many others like forcing the poisoned drinks. No such example exist in my research on decryption of Matured Harappan Scripts 1900-1300 BC Indus Civilization in South Asia during last 30 years from creation of universe to this date. If some one has an example in history , please quote it though it can not be valid under modern environments of global village.
No it shouldn't
= Newsroom =
National euthanasia statistics are difficult to pinpoint because animal care and control agencies are not uniformly required to keep statistics on the number of animals taken in, adopted, euthanized, or reclaimed. While many shelters know the value of keeping statistics, no national reporting structure exists to make compiling national statistics on these figures possible. However, American Humane is one of the founding members of the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy. The mission of the National Council is to gather and analyze reliable data that further characterize the number, origin, and disposition of pets (dogs and cats) in the United States; to promote responsible stewardship of these companion animals; and based on the data gathered, to recommend programs to reduce the number of surplus/unwanted pets in the United States. The most recent statistics that the Council has published are from 1997, however only 1,000 shelters replied to the survey. Using the National Council's numbers from 1997 and estimating the number of operating shelters in the United States to be 3,500 (the exact number of animal shelters operating in the United States does not exist), here are the statistics: * Of the 1,000 shelters that replied to the National Council's survey, 4.3 million animals were handled. * In 1997 roughly 64% of the total number of animals that entered shelters were euthanized -- approximately 2.7 million animals in just these 1,000 shelters.These animals may have been put down due to overcrowding, but may have been sick, aggressive, injured, or suffered something else. * 56% of dogs and 71% of cats that enter animal shelters are euthanized. More cats are euthanized than dogs because they are more likely to enter a shelter without any owner identification. * Only 15% of dogs and 2% of cats that enter animal shelters are reunited with their owners. * 25% of dogs and 24% of cats that enter animal shelters are adopted. It is from these numbers that we estimated what is occurring nationwide. It is widely accepted that 9.6 million animals are euthanized annually in the United States. For more information on the studies done by the National Council, please visit www.petpopulation.org. == American Humane believes that all dogs and cats adopted from public or private animal care and control agencies must be sterilized before being allowed to leave the shelter and supports passage of state laws mandating this practice. American Humane supports the establishment and operation of low-cost spay/neuter clinics. The reduction in cost motivates those who cannot and those who will not pay the full cost for the operation and has proven successful in reducing euthanasia rates in communities across the nation. American Humane believes the percentage of animals reunited with their owners would greatly increase if more pets were properly identified. * Be sure your pet wears an identification tag, rabies license, and city license. Include your name, address, phone number, and pet's name. * Keep licenses current as they help shelters locate pet owners. If you are willing to pay a reward, put it on the tag. * When moving, put a temporary tag on your pet. Include a phone number of someone who will know how to reach you. * Don't assume that your indoor pet doesn't need tags. Many strays in shelters are indoor pets that escaped. * Purchase special cat collars with elastic bands to protect your cat from being caught in trees or on fences. * In addition to ID tags, consider getting your pet tattooed or microchipped. Generally speaking, once per person, although in some cases more often.
Is there a law prohibiting euthanasia in the US?
someone is not considered dead until a doctor or the coroner pronounces them dead. It is necessary for the question to be more specific as to what the exact issue might be; such as debts of a deceased, a beneficiary of a will/estate, wrongful death of a person, and so forth.
What are the causes and effects of euthanasia?
Besides the termination of life, there stands numerous ethical and religious questions among societies.
One of the most difficult societal challenges is the concern that people close to the individual receiving euthanasia are doing so with the façade of compassionately caring, where the reality is that they are attempting to access the assets of the euthanised. There have also been suspicions presented to courts that the choice to euthanise someone is being done for the purpose of terminating a marriage so as to obtain access to an estate, at a point where the euthanised was in process of divorcing the claimant, thus excluding them from any assets.
Another, possibly more palpable consideration, is whether euthanasia is painful, cruel and even torture. It is known that the chemicals used in the United States to terminate the life of a convicted prisoner, is the same medication that is banned in the United Kingdom for use on animals, because it causes extreme agony. (tantamount to torture).
If it's an individual seeking euthanasia on their own accord, this raises questions regarding the mental stability of the individual, and whether society has an ethical and moral mandate to examine this possibility, and guide the individual towards social and chemical therapies. These good intentions can often conflict with the very real fact that the individual wishing to be euthanised is truly suffering, or at a point in their medical condition, where the idea of extended palliative care becomes repugnant. There are many times when families visit loved ones in hospital and vocally urge the individual to 'hold on, use mental and spiritual power to fight the idea of surrendering to death, etc,' where all the person wants is to protect their dignity and relieve their pain.
Palliative care can present numerous challenges for an individual - the pain medications cause acute constipation, the aggressive medications to combat the constipation causes acute diarrhoea, and the individual spends the last days or hours of their life in both emotional distress, gastrointestinal distress, and dependent upon others to clean them.
Also to be considered is the influence of religious and cultural mores. Suicide or self-regulated death is claimed to be murder - a serious sin against God. However, there is equally compelling verse that speaks otherwise.
In Islam, Muslims are strongly opposed to euthanasia. Muslims believe that all human life is sacred because it is given by Allah, (God) and that Allah chooses how long each person will live. Human beings have no right to interfere in this divine right.
Judaism states that suicide is forbidden by Jewish law and is a serious sin. Assisting in suicide and requesting such assistance (thereby creating an accomplice to a sinful act) is also forbidden, a violation of the Talmud. The Rabbis of the Talmud (Old Testament), strongly prohibit suicide and speak of it as me'aved atzmo l'da'at - "one who destroys him or herself knowingly." The conditions of life and death were not of our will; it is not according to our will that we were born and it is not according to our will that we shall die. (Avot 4:29). Committing suicide is a direct denial of the precious gift of life. Most importantly, suicide denies us the opportunity to repent for our misdeed.
In Buddhism it is always that one should refrain from the destruction of life, including your own. Buddhism sees suicide as a negative form of action. It suggests that the individual may be reborn in a sorrowful realm due to negative final thoughts. However, unlike Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, Buddhism does not condemn the act of suicide or euthanasia, but sees it as an impediment in one's path to enlightenment.
In Christianity God's word is considered as absolute, as written in Deuteronomy 32:39 (NIV): "See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand." Nowhere in the Scriptures is there an authority to take our own, or another's life.
From a secular, societal point, the act of Euthanasia has some practicalities: Organisations participating in a clinical 'assisted suicide' have a strict policy time-line, or 'check sheet' to follow. It ensures that the individual who is making this irreversible decision has finalised all of their affairs, wills, codicils, financial affairs, funeral instruction, private notes for family and/or friends, disposition and protection of pets, personal mementos, and preparation of their funeral requests and cemetery, etc., Also included is a series of medical consults with physicians, psychiatrists, and if desired, clergy. This is where the individual may face their greatest turmoil: the clergy may state unequivocally their opposition to suicide. The physician may claim there are other options available to extend life, although the quality of life will be altered. And the solicitor/attorney may have to mention the number of people coming out of the woodwork, as they queue up to stake their claim on the estate. These are all essential considerations to apply when making decisions towards such an irreversible act.
What state was the first state to legalize physician assisted suicide?
The technical answer is Oregon.
Another View: The questioner may have inadvertently used the wrong wording for their question.
While "Euthanasia" is against the law in all US states, three states do legally permit PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE. Assisted suicide is legal in the states of Oregon, Washington, and Montana, and I believe is under review in at least one other state at the time of this post (Jan '10).
What religion thinks that euthanasia is okay?
catholics: catholics believe that this is wrong and only god has the power to take away lives, catholics and their leaders obey by the bible verse 'tha'll shall not murder". Helping someone to die in this situation is not even a option in a catholics view
Christians: christians believe that killing someone to help ease there suffering is wrong but not all christians agree by this some thing differently and think euthanasia is a good idea if the suffering is so great to the mind and/or the body
Hope this helps!
Criminalizing euthanasia is unconstitutional. This is because the Constitution, in guaranteeing the right to life in the Bill of Rights, also guarantees the right to death. Death is a part of life. Therefore, citizens have the right to choose any peaceful way by which they wish to die, which includes the option of euthanasia. == On the contrary, in no way does the Constitution guarantee a right to death. Neither does it force someone to stay alive. The 5th amendment states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. This, opposed to the above, guarantees that it is against the law to "deprive" one of their life, which would include euthanization. Obviously the "due process of law" refers to criminals who commit crimes worthy of death. == Our Constitution states: "We hold these truths to b self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Any logical argument in a court of Law, will not stand by saying that an agreement to do something positive, if not so stated, would also include an unsaid agreement to do something negative. In no way did our forefathers have in mind, when they honored the right to life, that they would support the right to take your own life or to have someone assist you to do so. In reading the historical record of their writings and speeches, nobody finds justification to make our founders agree to euthanasia. They upheld the morals and standards found in the Bible.
A person's life is in God's hands, yet He also gives us various means to make life easier, when experiencing pain and suffering. "The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." Revelation 22:2. He has given us many medicines. The Scripture even says: "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones." Proverbs 17:22. This is a cure for those who are down in spirit.
Many people are depressed, merely because they reject God, and they thus have no hope for their lives. It has been shown that people who exercise faith, have healthier and longer lives than those who do not. Likewise, those who need to recuperate or survive, do much better with faith and hope, than those who do not have these factors.
Often, when a pastor or a faithful person prays with someone afflicted, they are encouraged and comforted. Most doctors would say that this is a great help in the process of healing or, in the inevitable waning of life, a much more peaceful passing.
There is no where in Scripture that it is honorable to end a life by suicide or to assist a person to take his life. Instead it says as a helpful medicine: "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts." In that same proverb passage it says otherwise to not drink strong drink in healthier situations. Also Proverbs 20:! says: "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." But euthanasia is not a Biblical solution, and efforts of man to justify it, are ignoring what God says in His Word. Countries that have legalized euthanasia have crept closer to or have gone over to involuntary euthanasia, which is the killing of a person who has not explicitly requested aid in dying. The Netherlands may have crossed that line recently. "The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government."... Thomas Jefferson
What are some pro-euthanasia groups?
here are some
>Compassion & Choices
>Compassion in Dying
>Dignitas
>Dignity in Dying
>Exit International
there are however many more
