Collaborated Death: An Exploration of the Swiss Model of Assisted Suicide for Its Potential to Enhance Oversight and Demedicalize the Dying Process

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Ziegler

Medicalized Death and the Right to Die Movement Prior to the 20th Century, most Americans died at home, surrounded by family, friends, and neighbors. Religion, not medicine, governed the death bed for there was little physicians could do for the dying. Eventually, however, advances in medicine and technology would lead to dramatic changes in the timing and location of death: patients not only began living longer, they were also dying longer, and unlike their predecessors, were more likely to die alone, in institutions, and among strangers. Modern medicine, in its zeal to conquer death, had become obsessed with its curative function and ability to extend the lives of the dying. To many in the medical community, death represented failure and was something to be avoided at all costs, and like many other social problems in the United States, had become medicalized.

Author(s):  
Anna Igorevna Filimonova

After the collapse of the USSR, fundamentally new phenomena appeared on the world arena, which became a watershed separating the bipolar order from the monopolar order associated with the establishment of the US global hegemony. Such phenomena were the events that are most often called «revolutions» in connection with the scale of the changes being made — «velvet revolutions» in the former Eastern Bloc, as well as revolutions of a different type, which ended in a change in the current regimes with such serious consequences that we are also talking about revolutionary transformations. These are technologies of «color revolutions» that allow organizing artificial and seemingly spontaneous mass protests leading to the removal of the legitimate government operating in the country and, in fact, to the seizure of power by a pro-American forces that ensure the Westernization of the country and the implementation of "neoliberal modernization", which essentially means the opening of national markets and the provision of natural resources for the undivided use of the Western factor (TNC and TNB). «Color revolutions» are inseparable from the strategic documents of the United States, in which, from the end of the 20th century, even before the collapse of the USSR, two main tendencies were clearly traced: the expansion of the right to unilateral use of force up to a preemptive strike, which is inextricably linked with the ideological justification of «missionary» American foreign policy, and the right to «assess» the internal state of affairs in countries and change it to a «democratic format», that is, «democratization». «Color revolutions», although they are not directly mentioned in strategic documents, but, being a «technical package of actions», straightforwardly follow from the right, assigned to itself by Washington, to unilateral use of force, which is gradually expanding from exclusively military actions to a comprehensive impact on an opponent country, i.e. essentially a hybrid war. Thus, the «color revolutions» clearly fit into the strategic concept of Washington on the use of force across the entire spectrum (conventional and unconventional war) under the pretext of «democratization». The article examines the period of registration and expansion of the US right to use force (which, according to the current international law, is a crime without a statute of limitations) in the time interval from the end of the twentieth century until 2014, filling semantic content about the need for «democratic transformations» of other states, with which the United States approached the key point of the events of the «Arab spring» and «color revolutions» in the post-Soviet space, the last and most ambitious of which was the «Euromaidan» in Ukraine in 2014. The article presents the material for the preparation of lectures and seminars in the framework of the training fields «International Relations» and «Political Science».


2001 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 631
Author(s):  
Kevin Fox Gotham ◽  
Elaine Fox ◽  
Jeffrey J. Kamakahi ◽  
Stella M. Capek

2001 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoon Leenaars ◽  
John Connolly ◽  
Chris Cantor ◽  
Marlene EchoHawk ◽  
Zhao Xiong He ◽  
...  

AbstractSuicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia are elusive and controversial issues worldwide. To discuss such issues from only one perspective may be limiting. Therefore, this paper was written by authors from various regions, each of whom has been asked to reflect on the issues. The countries/cultures are: Australia, China, Cuba, Ireland, India, Japan, Russia, South Africa, The Netherlands, North America (Turtle Island) and United States. Historically and today, suicide is viewed differently. Assisted suicide and euthanasia are equally seen from multifarious perspectives. Highlighting development in the Netherlands, Australia's Northern Territory and Japan (ie. the famous Yamanouchi Case), the review shows growing re-examination of the right to die. There appear, however, to be no uniform legal and ethical positions. Further debate and discussion globally is needed to avoid myopic perspectives.


2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
C A Sanche. Sarmiento ◽  
M Herran ◽  
V Herrera ◽  
R Martoglio ◽  
S Carrell ◽  
...  

Abstract Study question Is there any difference in the knowledge that doctors and health professionals from Córdoba (Argentina) and South Carolina (USA) have about fertility preservation or about when it should be applied? Summary answer Both populations have enough knowledge about some aspects of fertility preservation, but its training must be improved so they can give adequate counseling What is known already During the last decades, it has been observed that more young individuals need/decide to preserve fertility, whether for social or medical reasons. This presents a new challenge for the medical community, since, faced with this situation, it is important that society in general has access to information about fertility and the possibilities of preserving it, if necessary. To this end, it is essential that doctors and other health professionals have valid knowledge of the subject and are able to communicate it to their patients. Study design, size, duration Descriptive quantitative study. A total of 721 answers were obtained, 88.7% from Argentina and 11.3% from the United States. 28.43% (205) were doctors and 71.57% (516) were other health professionals. Participants/materials, setting, methods A closed-ended questionnaire of 20 questions was designed (segmentation and aspects about fertility preservation) and distributed to society through social networks. The survey was answered by people from Córdoba (Argentina) and South Carolina (US), of both sexes and different age, educational and socioeconomic levels. Only those with a medical degree or involved in some medical-related activity were selected. All answers were collected through SurveyMonkey and analyzed using calculation programs and statistical tools (Excel–2016, Statistica 8.0). Main results and the role of chance Data showed percentages of correct answers greater than 70% in all groups for the questions that analyze what factors can affect fertility, what situations can determine the need to preserve it, and what is the appropriate age for a woman to cryopreserve her eggs. On average, 82.4% of doctors and 72.87% of other health professionals know when it is the right time for patients diagnosed with cancer to receive information about the possibility of preserving their fertility. However, on average between both countries, only 34.63% of doctors has information about the legal medical coverage of their patients, while the 39.51% is completely unaware of their country’s laws. Finally, the percentages of professionals who do not know what material can be cryopreserved in girls who need to undergo oncological treatments reach 46.34 and 64.33% (doctors and other health professionals respectively). Limitations, reasons for caution The comparison between the two countries may be challenged by the inequality in the response rate to the survey. However, even the smaller number of responses obtained in the USA is sufficient to obtain valid conclusions. Wider implications of the findings: Both populations have sufficient information about factors which affect fertility and its preservation, especially in cancer situations. Misinformation in health personnel about these aspects directly affects possibilities of achieving future pregnancies for patients. Continuous updating and guidance should be a priority, as well as information dissemination and adequate medical counseling. Trial registration number .


1995 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 677-701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raphael Cohen-Almagor

This study compares how four countries, the United States, Canada, Britain and Israel, conceive active and passive euthanasia and the right to die in dignity. I start the discussion by clarifying the scope of the analysis and by shedding light on the concepts of autonomy and dignity. Section II proceeds by drawing attention to the familiar distinction between active and passive euthanasia, reviewing the current legal positions in the United States, Canada and England. Section III addresses Ronald Dworkin's distinction between experiential and critical interests, and further contemplates the analogy he draws between the destruction of life and the destruction of masterpieces of art. The section continues by contrasting Dworkin's assertion that what we seek is life in earnest, not any form of life, with Leibowitz's view that human life is sacred. In this context I also refer to the recent Scheffer decision, the only ruling at this time by the Israeli Supreme Court on the issue of death with dignity. Section IV considers the Eyal case, involving an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patient who expressed his wish not to be connected to a respirator. I assert that in such instances, the patients' autonomy would be sustained and their dignity better served by helping them die. It is not always true that keeping a person alive is to treat her best. In some situations we respect a person and her dignity when we help her cease living. My justification for helping such patients fulfill their request rests on the assumption that they freely and genuinely expressed their will to die, and that they persist in expressing that desire.


2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (Special Issue) ◽  
pp. 122-122
Author(s):  
Andrea Martani ◽  
◽  
◽  

"In the last few years, the debate whether terminally ill patients should have access to experimental treatments without governmental supervision has intensified. The so-called “Right-to-Try” (RTT) doctrine has become popular especially in the United States, where the federal parliament passed a bill allowing such practices. As many other policies concerning patients’ autonomy in end-of-life circumstances, the appropriateness of RTT has often been challenged. In this context, some authors recently put forward the argument that states where it is allowed to request physician assisted suicide (PAS) should also necessarily recognize a RTT. In the authors’ own words: “if states can give a terminally ill patient the right to die using medications with 100% probability of being unsafe and ineffective against his/her disease [i.e. the substances used for PAS], they should also be able to grant terminally ill patients a right to try medications with less than 100% probability of being unsafe and ineffective [i.e. ET]”. In this contribution, I will question this argument by underlying three flaws in the authors’ comparison of RTT and PAS. First, there is a fundamental distinction in the nature of the choices between the two situations concerning the (un)certainty of their outcomes. Second, the number of actors (and their potential conflicting interests) involved in these two situations is different. Third, the authors’ understanding of the object of patients’ rights in PAS is partially incorrect. I will conclude by arguing that, although reasons might exist to support RTT, such comparison with PAS is not one of them. "


1995 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 479-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
J D Smith ◽  
H R Glick

Through theories of agenda setting and innovation, the origin, development, and enactment of right-to-die policy in four Western nations—the United States, the Netherlands, Germany, and Great Britain—are examined. Different social and government structures produced varied right-to-die politics in each of these countries, although similar issues received more emphasis in Europe. However, it is discovered that policy entrepreneurs, organizations, and governments are important in similar ways in moving the issue from the public to the governmental agenda and to policy innovations in each country. The paper is concluded with a discussion of elements to be included in a model of agenda setting and innovation and with a proposal for the application of theory to a wider range of policies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document