scholarly journals Restorative Justice, Euthanasia, and Assisted Suicide: A New Arena for Restorative Justice and a New Path for End of Life Law and Policy in Canada

2011 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 965 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer J Llewellyn ◽  
Jocelyn Downie
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Traditional Approach ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
Policy Debates ◽  
Law And Policy

This articles examines the current Canadian legal approach to euthanasia and assisted suicide, highlights some of the problems with it, and offers a novel alternative to the current traditionally criminalized prohibitive regime.  The authors first describe a restorative justice approach and explain the differences between such an approach and the traditional approach currently in use.  They then explain how a restorative justice approach could be implemented in the arena of assisted death, acknowledging the potential challenges in implementation.  The authors conclude that taking a restorative justice approach to euthanasia and assisted suicide could enable movement in the seeminly intractable public policy debates about these issues, lead to more effective and compassionate responses to cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide, and prompt policy and practice reform that enables society to better care for individuals at the end of life.

Physician-Assisted Suicide: Where to Draw the Line?

2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 407-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
ERNLÉ W.D. YOUNG
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Assisted Dying ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
Policy Issues ◽  
Moral Distinction ◽  
Physician Assisted Dying ◽  
Hippocratic Tradition

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.

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.

9. The end of life

2021 ◽  
pp. 156-176
Author(s):  
Jo Samanta ◽  
Ash Samanta
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
Sanctity Of Life ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

This chapter deals with key legal and ethical issues surrounding end-of-life decisions, with particular reference to physician-assisted death, such as euthanasia. Suicide and assisted suicide, administration of pain relief, and futility are considered. Relevant legislation such as the Suicide Act 1961 (as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009), the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 are discussed. The chapter examines several bioethical principles, including sanctity-of-life and quality-of-life debates; autonomy, beneficence, and medical paternalism; personhood, palliative care, and the double effect doctrine. Finally, it considers human rights issues, treatment requests, incompetent patients, prolonged disorders of consciousness, and locked-in syndrome. Recent cases are considered.

How do we die?

2016 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bonnie Stabile ◽  
Aubrey Grant
Keyword(s):  
End Of Life ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Hospice Care ◽  
Good Reason ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
The United States ◽  
Medical Intervention ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Policy And Practice

Within the next two decades, the elderly population in the United States will reach its zenith, comprising 73 million individuals, 20 percent of the nation, the baby boomers’ final surge. The process of their dying may become contentious. Should policymakers and bioethicists be satisfied with our current approach to dying, or should they begin now to reconceptualize it? We distill end-of-life discussions in the bioethics literature and popular press, paying particular attention to physician-assisted suicide and its uptake where legal. Evidence so far indicates that few of the dying opt for this alternative, suggesting that its role in assuring “death with dignity” cannot be, as may have been hoped, a leading one. The end-of-life literature on the whole lends credence to the fear that most of the dying, along with their families and physicians, will muddle through a morass of uncoordinated options, with futile medical intervention the most prominent outcome — despite more palliative strategies, such as home hospice care, being favorably described. We found no reason to recommend persistence in our current approach to dying and found good reason to urge early, conscientious, and thoroughgoing reconceptualization in policy and practice as well as in theory.

scholarly journals Are the Distinctions Drawn in the Debate about End-of-Life Decision Making “Principled”? If Not, How Much Does it Matter?

2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yale Kamisar
Keyword(s):  
End Of Life ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Good Death ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Death With Dignity ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
Dying Patients ◽  
Aid In Dying ◽  
End Of Life Decision ◽  
Life Decision

I sometimes wonder whether some proponents of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) or physician-assisted death (PAD) think they own the copyright to such catchy phrases as “death with dignity” and “a good death” so that if you are against PAS or PAD, then you must be against a dignified death or a good death. If one removes the quotation marks around phrases like “aid-in-dying” or “compassionate care for the dying,” I am not opposed to such end-of-life care either. Indeed, how could anybody be against this type of care?I do not want to abandon dying patients anymore than Dr. Timothy Quill does. Although, unfortunately, it will not always be easy to achieve the desired result, I agree with him that it ought to be a goal of medicine “to help people die well, to help them receive a good death” — or at least “the best possible” death under the circumstances. I part company with Professor Quill, however, when he urges us to change the law in the majority of our states so that in some circumstances patients may achieve a “good death” or a “dignified” one by means of lethal drugs.

How Health Care Institutions in the Netherlands Approach Physician Assisted Death

1996 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 179-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herman H. Van Der Kloot Meijburg
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Professional Expertise ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
Health Care Institutions ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Way

There is a need for reassessing the specific responsibilities of health care institutions in cases of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. For many patients health care institutions have become their end-of-life setting. With regard to patients' decisions toward the end of life, hospitals carry three responsibilities of their own: first, they must attend to the needs of the individual patient; second, they are responsible for offering professional expertise and their experience to the patient; and third, they must execute the responsibilities entrusted to them by society. In the way health care institutions cope with institutional decisions toward the end of life, they fulfill an exemplary function. In this contribution we will explore these institutional responsibilities by looking at the developments in The Netherlands.

Euthanasia, Physician Assisted Suicide in the Netherlands in Dementia and Late Life Psychiatric Illness

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. S11-S11 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Stek
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Psychiatric Illness ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Oldest Old ◽  
High Threshold ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Assisted Death

BackgroundAlthough controversial in many countries, in The Netherlands euthanasia or physician assisted death has increased in patients with early stages of dementia, psychiatric illness and in conditions described as ‘being tired of life’ in the oldest old. There is a strong debate about this practice in the community and among professionals often with exclamation marks ranging from medical murder to providing ultimate care.ObjectiveTo provide figures, describe current practice and debate in The Netherlands with regard to capacity evaluation in older psychiatric patients and end of life questions.MethodsReview of literature, case reports and own experience in the past decade.Result and conclusionThere are few studies on the important issue of capacity making in psychiatric patients. The research that was performed does not show that a high threshold of capacity is required for granting euthanasia. Research on physician-assisted death in early dementia is scarce. With regard to end of life questions the debate in The Netherlands is still ongoing.Disclosure of interestThe author has not supplied his declaration of competing interest.

9. The end of life

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo Samanta ◽  
Ash Samanta
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Minimally Conscious State ◽  
Conscious State ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Sanctity Of Life ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter deals with key legal and ethical issues surrounding end-of-life decisions, with particular reference to physician-assisted death such as euthanasia. Suicide and assisted suicide, administration of pain relief, and futility are considered. Relevant legislation such as the Suicide Act 1961 (as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009), the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 are discussed. The chapter examines several bioethical principles, including sanctity-of-life and quality-of-life debates; autonomy, beneficence, and medical paternalism; personhood, palliative care, and the double effect doctrine. Finally, it considers human rights issues, treatment requests, incompetent patients, and the concept of the minimally conscious state and locked-in syndrome. Recent cases are cited.

scholarly journals Currently Accepted Practices That Are Known to Lead to Death, and PAS: Is There an Ethically Relevant Difference?

1998 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 375-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
THOMAS A. CAVANAUGH
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Lethal Dose ◽  
Medical Intervention ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Relevant Difference ◽  
Relieve Pain

A number of common and generally noncontroversial practices in the care of patients at the end of life lead to their deaths. For example, physicians honor a patient's refusal of medical intervention even when doing so leads to the patient's death. Similarly, with a patient's or surrogate's consent, physicians administer sedatives in order to relieve pain and distress at the end of life, even when it is known that doing so will cause the patient's death. In contemporary U.S. public policy, these practices are accepted as ethical and legal while physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is—for the most part—rejected in current U.S. law and public policy. Some think, however, that if one accepts practices that are known to lead to a patient's death, then one cannot reasonably reject a patient's request for a lethal dose of medication so that she may kill herself (PAS).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document