Why Do People Want to Die? The Meaning of Life from the Perspective of Euthanasia

2021 ◽  
Vol 90 ◽  
pp. 297-311
Author(s):  
Fredrik Svenaeus

AbstractOne way to examine the enigmatic meaningfulness of human life is to ask under which conditions persons ask in earnest for assistance to die, either through euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. The counterpart of intolerable suffering must consist in some form of, however minimal, flourishing that makes people want to go on with their lives, disregarding other reasons to reject assisted dying that have more to do with religious prohibitions. To learn more about why persons want to hasten death during the last days, weeks or months of their lives, what kinds of suffering they fear and what they hold to be the main reasons to carry on or not carry on living, the paper offers some examples from a book written by the physician Uwe-Christian Arnold. He has helped hundreds of persons in Germany to die with the aid of sedative drugs the last 25 years, despite the professional societies and codes in Germany that prohibit such actions. The paper discusses various examples from Arnold's book and makes use of them to better understand not only why people sometimes want to die but what made their lives meaningful before they reached this final decision.

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-112
Author(s):  
V. N. Ostapenko ◽  
I. V. Lantukh ◽  
A. P. Lantukh

Annotation. The problem of suicide and euthanasia has been particularly updated with the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused a strong explosion of suicide, because medicine was not ready for it, and the man was too weak in front of its pressure. The article considers the issue of euthanasia and suicide based on philosophical messages from the position of a doctor, which today goes beyond medicine and medical ethics and becomes one of the important aspects of society. Medicine has achieved success in the continuation of human life, but it is unable to ensure the quality of life of those who are forced to continue it. In these circumstances, the admission of suicide or euthanasia pursues the refusal of the subject to achieve an adequate quality of life; an end to suffering for those who find their lives unacceptable. The reasoning that banned suicide: no one should harm or destroy the basic virtues of human nature; deliberate suicide is an attempt to harm a person or destroy human life; no one should kill himself. The criterion may be that suicide should not take place when it is committed at the request of the subject when he devalues his own life. According to supporters of euthanasia, in the conditions of the progress of modern science, many come to the erroneous opinion that medicine can have total control over human life and death. But people have the right to determine the end of their lives while using the achievements of medicine, as well as the right to demand an extension of life with the help of the same medicine. They believe that in the era of a civilized state, the right to die with medical help should be as natural as the right to receive medical care. At the same time, the patient cannot demand death as a solution to the problem, even if all means of relieving him from suffering have been exhausted. In defense of his claims, he turns to the principle of beneficence. The task of medicine is to alleviate the suffering of the patient. But if physician-assisted suicide and active euthanasia become part of health care, theoretical and practical medicine will be deprived of advances in palliative and supportive therapies. Lack of adequate palliative care is a medical, ethical, psychological, and social problem that needs to be addressed before resorting to such radical methods as legalizing euthanasia.


2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (10) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Ralph A. Capone ◽  

In 1847, the American Medical Association established the first professional code of ethics for physicians in the United States. Expanded over the years to meet the needs of the medical profession, its most recent edition, adopted in 2016, includes a statement of AMA principles of medical ethics and eleven sets of opinions on various topics. After 169 years of opposition to physician involvement in directly causing patients’ deaths, the AMA is considering a change in its position—a position that has always averred the sacredness of every human life, asserting that the physician’s role is to cure when possible, care always, and ultimately err on the side of protecting and preserving human life. Following its annual meeting this past June, the AMA House of Delegates recommended that the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs study aid-in-dying as an end-of- life option and report back at the annual meeting in 2017.


Author(s):  
G. T. Laurie ◽  
S. H. E. Harmon ◽  
E. S. Dove

This chapter discusses ethical and legal aspects of euthanasia and assisted dying. It first examines the non-voluntary termination of life, covering the relationship between medical treatment and assistance in dying as a matter of failure to treat, and the philosophical concept of ‘double effect’. The chapter then discusses activity and passivity in assisted dying; dying as an expression of patient autonomy; suicide and assisted suicide; physician-assisted suicide; and assisted dying in practice.


2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 407-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
ERNLÉ W.D. YOUNG

In brief compass, I will touch on three of the central ethical and public policy issues that divide those who are opposed to physician-assisted dying from those who are supportive of this practice. These are: (1) the moral distinction (if any) between actively hastening death and passively allowing to die; (2) how to interpret the Hippocratic tradition in medicine with respect to physician-assisted death; and (3) whether physician-assisted suicide can be effectively regulated. I shall summarize the arguments pro and con with respect to each issue, and also indicate my own position.


2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Taufik Suryadi ◽  
Kulsum Kulsum

Abstrak. Isu-isu tentang akhir kehidupan (end of life) selalu menarik untuk dibicarakan. Penentuan akhir kehidupan ini sering menjadi dilema bagi para dokter karena apabila dokter tidak memahami tentang pengambilan keputusan akhir hidup pasien ia akan menghadapi konsekuensi bioetika dan medikolegal. Terdapat beberapa istilah yang berkaitan dengan isu akhir kehidupan yaitu euthanasia, withholding and withdrawal life support, physician assisted suicide, dan  palliative care. Dengan berkembangnya ilmu kedokteran dan teknologi, definisi kematian menjadi sulit ditentukan karena dengan bantuan alat canggih kedokteran kehidupan ‘dapat diperpanjang’. Dari kenyataan inilah maka timbul pertanyaan serius: “Sampai kapan dokter harus mempertahankan kehidupan?. Apakah semua jenis pengobatan dan perawatan yang dapat  memperpanjang hidup manusia itu harus selalu diberikan?”.Dari permasalahan ini dapat didiskusikan tentang euthanasia ditinjau dari sudut bioetika dan medikolegal. Kata kunci: euthanasia, aspek bioetika, aspek medikolegal  Abstract .The issues of end of life are always interesting to discussed. This final determination of life is often a dilemma for doctors because if the doctor does not understand the final decision of the patient's life he will face the consequences of bioethics and medicolegal. There are several terms related to the issues of end of life that is euthanasia, withholding and withdrawal life support, physician assisted suicide, and palliative care. With the development of medical science and technology, the definition of death becomes difficult to determine because with the help of advanced medical devices 'life can be extended'. It is from this fact that a serious question arises: "How long should doctors maintain life? Are all types of cure and care that can extend the life of a human should always be given? "From this issues can be discussed about euthanasia in terms of bioethics and medicolegal. Keywords: euthanasia, bioethics aspect, medicolegal aspect


Author(s):  
Anne-Berit Ekström ◽  
Mikaela Luthman

The so-called Oregon model has been described as a more attractive and safer alternative for assisted dying than the controversial euthanasia laws in the Benelux countries. Many advocates of assisted dying believe that the Oregon model, which implies physician-assisted suicide, is better adapted to Swedish (Nordic) conditions. In order to be able to offer assisted dying according to the Oregon model, seven criteria must be met. In this chapter, we will analyse the criteria and examine whether the practices of the Oregon model meet them. Is it a safe model to help severely ill people from suffering during their very last stage of life? To what extent can the model guarantee security and justice for those involved? Finally, we want to investigate whether it can be a suitable model for the Nordic countries.


Author(s):  
Søren Holm

A proposal put forth in the Dutch Parliament suggests that anyone over the age of 75 should have a legally guaranteed right to physician-assisted suicide if they wish to die, unless the wish is the result of a mental illness. This chapter discusses three questions about the relationship between age and entitlement to assisted dying: 1) are there good reasons to introduce a purely age-determined criterion for a right to assisted dying; 2) would such an age criterion lead to problematic discrimination against the elderly, or alternatively to discrimination against people who are too young to meet the criterion; and 3) what is the relationship between an age criterion and a postulated duty to choose assisted dying in specific situations. The discussion of these three issues shows that there are no good reasons for introducing an age criterion for the right to die, that an age criterion is potentially discriminatory to both the elderly and the young, and that introducing an age criterion could lead to problematic pressure against vulnerable elderly people.


1996 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 1151-1161
Author(s):  
Denis Cavanagh

The article deals with the impact of the so called “culture of death” on medical practice in United States (US). In fact, in America, while the pretence is being kept up on the importance of the Hippocratic oath and the evangelic benevolence of the Good Samaritan, the strategy of the secular humanists is to try to make these irrelevant in the twin interests of social convenience and fiscal security. This campaign has been quietly waged in the media, in the courts, in public schools and universities. According this strategy, the threats to human life are, namely, two: abortion and euthanasia. On the first issue, in US the situation is discouraging because the US Supreme Court rulings Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton in 1973, that have made abortion a woman’s choice for any reason in the first and second trimester and available with medical consultation for almost any reason in the third trimester of pregnancy. Regarding the euthanasia, the campaign strategy is following the same pattern as that used to legalize abortion: the Euthanasia Lobby is claiming that millions of people in America are suffering unbearable pain because of terminal illness and so ought to have the right to end their pain with physician- assisted suicide. On the contrary, the author assert that there is no right to destroy any human life or participate in its destruction and there is no good moral reason for abortion or euthanasia, including the physician-assisted suicide. Finally, the author think that it is vital that Catholic activists, allied with Christian church-going brethren, should resist with all the power they can muster to the “culture of death”.


Author(s):  
John Keown

This chapter identifies several respects in which medical law in England and Wales suffers from a lack of ethical coherence in relation to its protection of human life. It argues that it is philosophically incoherent for the law to calibrate its protection of human life according to arbitrary stages of human development such as birth, viability, the fourteenth day after fertilization, and implantation. To the extent that the law permits life-sustaining treatment to be withheld or withdrawn from incompetent patients on the ground that their ‘quality of life’ is insufficient, and even with an intent to hasten death, it again displays ethical incoherence. If legislators or judges were to make it lawful for physicians to intentionally assist suicidal refusals of treatment, or to endorse a right to physician-assisted suicide for the ‘terminally ill’, the law's ethical incoherence would be seriously aggravated.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document