Physician-Assisted Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia: is it time the UK law caught up?

1999 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-117
Author(s):  
Pauline Griffiths
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Personal Autonomy ◽  
Voluntary Euthanasia ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Alternative Treatments ◽  
Vulnerable People ◽  
Pain And Suffering ◽  
Open Discussion ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right

People who wish to end their lives when they consider that they cannot endure further pain and suffering cannot legally obtain help to produce a peaceful death. The reality of practice seems to be that, covertly, physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia do take place. The value of personal autonomy in issues of consent has been clarified in the courts in that a competent adult person has the right to refuse or choose alternative treatments even if death will be the outcome. This issue needs open discussion and regulation in order to protect those vulnerable people in our society.

Death with “dignity”: The wedge that divides the disability rights movement from the right to die movement

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan M. Behuniak
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Personal Autonomy ◽  
Right To Die ◽  
Disability Rights ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Death With Dignity ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
A Value ◽  
The Right

Much of the American debate over physician assisted death (PAD) is framed as an ideological split between conservatives and liberals, pro life and pro choice advocates, and those who emphasize morality versus personal autonomy. Less examined, but no less relevant, is a split within the ranks of progressives—one that divides those supporting a right to die in the name of human rights from disability rights activists who invoke human rights to vehemently oppose euthanasia. This paper reviews how “dignity” serves both as a divisive wedge in this debate but also as a value that can span the divide between groups and open the way to productive discourse. Supporters of legalized euthanasia use “dignity” to express their position that some deaths might indeed be accelerated. At the same time, opponents adopt the concept to argue that physician assisted suicide stigmatizes life with a disability. To bridge this divide, the worldviews of two groups, Compassion & Choices and Not Dead Yet, are studied. The analysis concludes that the two organizations are more parallel than contrary—a finding that offers opportunities for dialogue and perhaps even advances in public policy.

Death with “dignity”: The wedge that divides the disability rights movement from the right to die movement

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (01) ◽  
pp. 17-32
Author(s):  
Susan M. Behuniak
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Personal Autonomy ◽  
Right To Die ◽  
Disability Rights ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Death With Dignity ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
A Value ◽  
The Right

Much of the American debate over physician assisted death (PAD) is framed as an ideological split between conservatives and liberals, pro life and pro choice advocates, and those who emphasize morality versus personal autonomy. Less examined, but no less relevant, is a split within the ranks of progressives—one that divides those supporting a right to die in the name of human rights from disability rights activists who invoke human rights to vehemently oppose euthanasia. This paper reviews how “dignity” serves both as a divisive wedge in this debate but also as a value that can span the divide between groups and open the way to productive discourse. Supporters of legalized euthanasia use “dignity” to express their position that some deaths might indeed be accelerated. At the same time, opponents adopt the concept to argue that physician assisted suicide stigmatizes life with a disability. To bridge this divide, the worldviews of two groups, Compassion & Choices and Not Dead Yet, are studied. The analysis concludes that the two organizations are more parallel than contrary—a finding that offers opportunities for dialogue and perhaps even advances in public policy.

Empirical research in the debate on physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 129-132
Author(s):  
Stephen W Smith
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Data ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Terminally Ill ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Voluntary Euthanasia ◽  
Assisted Dying ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Select Committee ◽  
End Of Life Decisions ◽  
The Uk

This article explores the use of empirical data when considering whether to legalize physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and voluntary euthanasia. In particular, it focuses on the evidence available to the Select Committee for the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill on whether or not covert euthanasia is taking place in the UK under the current prohibition of PAS and voluntary euthanasia. The article shows that there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to make any claims about the extent of covert euthanasia within the UK, although there is sufficient evidence to conclude that instances of covert euthanasia do happen. The article also calls for more research to be conducted in order to determine the rate of covert euthanasia in order to inform debate about the legalization of end-of-life decisions such as PAS and voluntary euthanasia.

Ethics in cancer care

2019 ◽  
pp. 159-172
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethical Principles ◽  
Assisted Dying ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Drug Treatments ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right

The biomedical ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice are well established, though they have been challenged by feminist and nursing ethics. Decision-making in practice requires a balance of not only ethical principles, but also legal and professional frameworks, alongside patient and family wishes. Cancer clinical trials raise ethical issues around the balance between risk and potential benefits to patients, and they may need support making the right decision about whether to participate. The rising cost of cancer drug treatments has raised difficult questions about which drugs should be authorized for use within the United Kingdom (UK)'s National Health Service. End-of-life care raises particularly challenging ethical issues. Mental capacity or competence is defined in law in the UK, and treatment decisions may be made on behalf of patients if they are assessed and found to lack capacity. However, patients and families are encouraged to make advance statements and decisions about treatment in the event of losing capacity. Decisions on whether to give, withdraw, or withhold treatment, artificial hydration and nutrition, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) are sensitive, and should be based on assessment, consultation with family, and consideration of ethical, legal, and professional principles. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (assisted dying) are highly contentious issues internationally and illegal in most countries. Some countries allow them under certain circumstances. In response to a patient asking about assisted dying, the nurse should listen to their concerns, be prepared to talk about the process of dying, and support them to establish their priorities.

Physician-Assisted Suicide and Democracy

2003 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-118
Author(s):  
Raymond L. Dennehy ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Slippery Slope ◽  
Voluntary Euthanasia ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Theoretical Level ◽  
Pursuit Of Happiness ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Ample Evidence ◽  
The Right ◽  
Practical Level

Apologists for physician-assisted suicide maintain that democracy's commitment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness entitles any rational adult to decide when to end one's life. Yet the procedure nullifies freedom and the right to life, and is thus anti-democratic. Both on the practical and theoretical levels, assisted suicide leads to involuntary euthanasia. On the theoretical level, the distinction between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia is clear, but on the practical level it becomes blurry. Both pre-Nazi Germany and contemporary Holland offer ample evidence for the slippery slope that leads from voluntary to involuntary euthanasia. While advocates of assisted suicide regard the transition to the involuntary as an "abuse," that transition is, however, necessarily implied, and hence justified by assisted suicide. For the putative "right" to kill oneself implies that one has rights of disposal over one's life. But what is in principle disposable may be disposed of by others. Any argument for voluntary euthanasia implies the justification of involuntary eutharuisia. Therefore, physician-assisted suicide nullifies the right to life and with it the democratic charter.

scholarly journals IS THE RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED? BAXTER V MONTANA* AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN PATIENT AUTONOMY AND PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE

Obiter ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Suhayfa Bhamjee
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Patient Autonomy ◽  
Voluntary Euthanasia ◽  
Right To Die ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right

This article examines the question of whether the right to life encompasses the right to die with dignity. It looks at the concepts of autonomy and paternalism as they exist as major themes on either side of the debate. Physician Assisted Suicide (Voluntary Euthanasia) has come under the spotlight in several jurisdictions, not just our own. Most recently in Montana, USA, the issue came before the Supreme Court for deliberation. The states of Washington and Oregon have legislations specific to PAS, legitimizing assisted suicide and removing wrongfulness from the actions of a physician who assists in the prescribed manner. Montana does not have specific legislation, but instead relied on the clauses of its Constitution, and it was held that the right to die with dignity is constitutionally guaranteed in that state. Here, argument is made suggesting that the right to die with dignity, in other words, to seek and easy passing through PAS, is also guaranteed in our Constitution.

Who Favors Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide? The Vote on Michigan's Proposal B

2001 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Strate ◽  
Timothy Kiska ◽  
Marvin Zalman
Keyword(s):  
Republican Party ◽  
Democratic Party ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Church Attendance ◽  
Personal Autonomy ◽  
Party Identification ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Sanctity Of Life ◽  
Initiative Process ◽  
Social Liberalism

At the November 1998 general election, Michigan citizens were given the opportunity to vote on Proposal B, an initiative that would have legalized physician-assisted suicide (PAS). PAS initiatives also have been held in Washington State, California, Oregon, and Maine, with only Oregon's passing. We use exit poll data to analyze the vote on Proposal B. Attributes associated with social liberalism—Democratic Party identification, less frequent church attendance, more education, and greater household income—led to increased odds of a “yes” vote. Attributes associated with social conservatism—Republican Party identification and frequent church attendance—led to decreased odds of a “yes” vote. Similar to the abortion issue, PAS's supporters strongly value personal autonomy, whereas its opponents strongly value the sanctity of life. Voter alignments like those in Michigan will likely appear in other states with the initiative process if PAS reaches their ballots.

Terminal Sedation: Palliative Care for Intractable Pain, Post Glucksberg and Quill

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-76
Author(s):  
Rob McStay
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Intractable Pain ◽  
Terminal Sedation ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
The Right ◽  
Artificial Life Support ◽  
Unconscious State

In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court tacitly endorsed terminal sedation as an alternative to physician-assisted suicide, thus intensifying a debate in the legal and medical communities as to the propriety of terminal sedation and setting the stage for a new battleground in the “right to die” controversy. Terminal sedation is the induction of an unconscious state to relieve otherwise intractable distress, and is frequently accompanied by the withdrawal of any life-sustaining intervention, such as hydration and nutrition. This practice is a clinical option of “last resort” when less aggressive palliative care measures have failed. Terminal sedation has also been described as “the compromise in the furor over physician-assisted suicide.”Medical literature suggests that terminal sedation was a palliative care option long before the Supreme Court considered the constitutional implications of physician-assisted suicide. Terminal sedation has been used for three related but distinct purposes: (1) to relieve physical pain; (2) to produce an unconscious state before the withdrawal of artificial life support; and (3) to relieve non-physical suffering.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document