Euthanasia and Related Practices Worldwide

Crisis ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 109-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J Kelleher † ◽  
Derek Chambers ◽  
Paul Corcoran ◽  
Helen S Keeley ◽  
Eileen Williamson
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
International Association ◽  
Active Euthanasia ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Passive Euthanasia ◽  
Medical Practitioners ◽  
General Acceptance ◽  
International Importance ◽  
Controversial Area ◽  
Active And Passive Euthanasia

The present paper examines the occurrence of matters relating to the ending of life, including active euthanasia, which is, technically speaking, illegal worldwide. Interest in this most controversial area is drawn from many varied sources, from legal and medical practitioners to religious and moral ethicists. In some countries, public interest has been mobilized into organizations that attempt to influence legislation relating to euthanasia. Despite the obvious international importance of euthanasia, very little is known about the extent of its practice, whether passive or active, voluntary or involuntary. This examination is based on questionnaires completed by 49 national representatives of the International Association for Suicide Prevention (IASP), dealing with legal and religious aspects of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, as well as suicide. A dichotomy between the law and medical practices relating to the end of life was uncovered by the results of the survey. In 12 of the 49 countries active euthanasia is said to occur while a general acceptance of passive euthanasia was reported to be widespread. Clearly, definition is crucial in making the distinction between active and passive euthanasia; otherwise, the entire concept may become distorted, and legal acceptance may become more widespread with the effect of broadening the category of individuals to whom euthanasia becomes an available option. The “slippery slope” argument is briefly considered.

Attitudes and behaviors on physician-assisted death: a study of Michigan oncologists.

1995 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 1055-1061 ◽  
Author(s):  
D J Doukas ◽  
D Waterhouse ◽  
D W Gorenflo ◽  
J Seid
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Subsequent Development ◽  
Active Euthanasia ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Passive Euthanasia ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
Psychometric Scales ◽  
Attitudes And Behaviors ◽  
Therapy Withdrawal ◽  
And Behaviors

PURPOSE To ascertain the attitudes of oncologists toward physician-assisted death, ie, physician-assisted suicide and active euthanasia, as well as their experiences with these activities and their opinions toward their legalization. METHODS A survey was mailed to all practicing 250 oncologists in the state of Michigan, with subsequent development of psychometric scales and their correlation with self-reported behaviors in physician-assisted death. RESULTS Analysis revealed five distinct, meaningful factors regarding approval or disapproval of physician-assisted death. These factors reflected global attitudes toward physician-assisted death, passive euthanasia, philosophical prohibitions toward physician-assisted death, concerns of legal consequences with physician-assisted death, and attitudes that physician-assisted death could be avoided with better end-of-life care (alpha = .94, .74, .76, .87, and .84, respectively). High levels of therapy withdrawal were reported (81%), with significant reservations toward assisted suicide and active euthanasia, although reported participation in such actions was noteworthy (18% and 4%, respectively). The scales reflecting global and philosophical attitudes correlated with several attitudes and behaviors toward physician-assisted death (P < .001). Legislation that would allow physician-assisted death was favored by 20.8% of respondents. CONCLUSION Although they have reservations about physician-assisted death, significant numbers of oncologists are willing to consider such actions should they become legal. Given the substantial number of physicians who report that they have already participated in physician-assisted death, these findings may help better understand the attitudes that motivate physician behaviors toward assisted death.

scholarly journals Comparison of attitudes towards five end-of-life care interventions (active pain control, withdrawal of futile life-sustaining treatment, passive euthanasia, active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide): a multicentred cross-sectional survey of Korean patients with cancer, their family caregivers, physicians and the general Korean population

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. e020519 ◽  
Author(s):  
Young Ho Yun ◽  
Kyoung-Nam Kim ◽  
Jin-Ah Sim ◽  
Shin Hye Yoo ◽  
Miso Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Family Caregivers ◽  
Pain Control ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
The Other ◽  
Active Euthanasia ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Passive Euthanasia ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Attitudes Towards Death ◽  
Life Sustaining Treatment

ObjectivesThis study determined attitudes of four groups—Korean patients with cancer, their family caregivers, physicians and the general Korean population—towards five critical end-of-life (EOL) interventions—active pain control, withdrawal of futile life-sustaining treatment (LST), passive euthanasia, active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.Design and settingWe enrolled 1001 patients with cancer and 1006 caregivers from 12 large hospitals in Korea, 1241 members of the general population and 928 physicians from each of the 12 hospitals and the Korean Medical Association. We analysed the associations of demographic factors, attitudes towards death and the important components of a ‘good death’ with critical interventions at EoL care.ResultsAll participant groups strongly favoured active pain control and withdrawal of futile LST but differed in attitudes towards the other four EoL interventions. Physicians (98.9%) favoured passive euthanasia more than the other three groups. Lower proportions of the four groups favoured active euthanasia or PAS. Multiple logistic regression showed that education (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.77, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.36), caregiver role (aOR 1.67, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.08) and considering death as the ending of life (aOR 1.66, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.61) were associated with preference for active pain control. Attitudes towards death, including belief in being remembered (aOR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.79) and feeling ‘life was meaningful’ (aOR 2.56, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.15) were both strong correlates of withdrawal of LST with the level of monthly income (aOR 2.56, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.15). Believing ‘freedom from pain’ negatively predicted preference for passive euthanasia (aOR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.85). In addition, ‘not being a burden to the family’ was positively related to preferences for active euthanasia (aOR 1.62, 95% CI 1.39 to 1.90) and PAS (aOR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.89).ConclusionGroups differed in their attitudes towards the five EoL interventions, and those attitudes were significantly associated with various attitudes towards death.

Aid-in-Dying: Should We Decriminalize Physician-Assisted Suicide and Physician-Committed Euthanasia?

1992 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 369-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria T. CeloCruz
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Active Euthanasia ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
News Stories ◽  
Voluntary Active Euthanasia ◽  
Aid In Dying

Recent news stories, medical journal articles, and two state voter referenda have publicized physicians’ providing their patients with aid-in-dying. This Note distinguishes two components of aid-in-dying: physician-assisted suicide and physiciancommitted voluntary active euthanasia. The Note traces these components’ distinct historical and legal treatments and critically examines arguments for and against both types of action. This Note concludes that aid-in-dying measures should limit legalization initiatives to physician-assisted suicide and should not embrace physician-committed voluntary active euthanasia.

EUTHANASIA: AIMING TO KILL WITH A COUNTER FULL OF OPTIONS?

2021 ◽  
pp. 13-14
Author(s):  
Tusharindra Lal ◽  
Riya Kataria ◽  
Priyadarshee Pradhan
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Medical Practitioner ◽  
Passive Euthanasia ◽  
Life And Death ◽  
Patient’S Autonomy ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The World ◽  
Meaningful Existence ◽  
The Right ◽  
Active And Passive Euthanasia

Euthanasia or assisted suicide has been a matter of contention for many years with various types of euthanasia including voluntary, non-voluntary, involuntary, active and passive euthanasia being argued for around the world. This article highlights the types of euthanasia while analyzing the ethical, legal, economical and spiritual dilemmas surrounding them. It also compares euthanasia laws of countries around the world with the Indian stand taken by the Supreme Court in legalizing passive euthanasia. There exists a ne line between life and death. It is the duty of a medical practitioner to assess these situations critically while preserving a patient's autonomy. To deny a person the right to end their life with dignity is equivalent to depriving them of a meaningful existence.

scholarly journals The Legitimacy of Prohibiting Euthanasia

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Gildenhuys
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Social Costs ◽  
Active Euthanasia ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Policy Debates ◽  
The Social

John Arras argues against the legalization of physician-assisted suicide and active euthanasia on the basis of social costs that he anticipates will result from legalization. Arras believes that the legalization of highly restricted physician-assisted suicide will result in the legalization of active euthanasia without special restrictions, a prediction I grant for the sake of argument. Arras further anticipates that the practices of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia will be abused, so that many patients who engage in these practices will lose out as a result. He refers to these losses as social costs to legalization. But the social costs at play in typical public policy debates are borne by individuals other than the agent who engages in the controversial activity, specifically by people who cannot be held responsible for enduring those costs. Even if plausible interpretations of Arras’ predictions about the abuse of the practice are granted, legalization of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia brings no social costs of this latter sort. For this reason, and also because a ban on euthanasia is unfair to those who would profit from it, the losses in utility brought about by legalization would have to be very great to justify a ban.

scholarly journals Aktív eutanázia Kolumbiában és asszisztált öngyilkosság Kaliforniában

2016 ◽  
Vol 157 (5) ◽  
pp. 174-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Máté Julesz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Active Form ◽  
The United States ◽  
Active Euthanasia ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Legal Tradition ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States

The institution of active euthanasia has been legal in Colombia since 2015. In California, the regulation on physician-assisted suicide will come into effect on January 1, 2016. The legal institution of active euthanasia is not accepted under the law of the United States of America, however, physician-assisted suicide is accepted in an increasing number of member states. The related regulation in Oregon is imitated in other member states. In South America, Colombia is not the first country to legalize active euthanasia: active euthanasia has been legal in Uruguay since 1932. The North American legal tradition markedly differs from the South American one and both are incompatible with the Central European rule of law. In Hungary and in most European Union countries, solely the passive form of euthanasia is legal. In the Benelux countries, the active form of euthanasia is legal because the supranational law of the European Union does not prohibit it. Notwithstanding, European Union law does not prescribe legalization of either the active form of euthanasia, or the physician-assisted suicide. Orv. Hetil., 2016, 157(5), 174–179.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document