scholarly journals Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Review from Islamic Point of View

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yousuf RM ◽  
Mohammed Fauzi AR
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Health Care Delivery System ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Medical Community ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Dying Patients ◽  
Practice Of Medicine ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Lay Public

Due to globalizing trend of homogenisation of culture, changes in the health care delivery system and market economics infringing on the practice of medicine, there has been a gradual shift in the attitude of the medical community as well as the lay public towards greater acceptance of euthanasia as an option for terminally ill and dying patients. Physicians in developing countries come across situations where such issues are raised with increasing frequency. As the subject has gained worldwide prominence, we want to review this topic from Islamic perspective due to its significance in medical ethics and clinical practice.

scholarly journals The Doctor–Patient Relationship: Does Christianity Make a Difference?

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
James J Delaney
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Clinical Encounter ◽  
Patient Relationship ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Doctor Patient Relationship ◽  
Moral Tradition ◽  
Practice Of Medicine ◽  
Christian Understanding ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Perinatal Hospice

Abstract The nature of the doctor–patient relationship is central to the practice of medicine and thus to bioethics. The American Medical Association (in AMA principles of medical ethics, available at: https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/patient-physician-relationships, 2016) states, “The practice of medicine, and its embodiment in the clinical encounter between a patient and a physician, is fundamentally a moral activity that arises from the imperative to care for patients and to alleviate suffering.” In this issue of Christian Bioethics, leading scholars consider what relevance (if any) Christianity brings to the relationship between physician and patient: does Christianity make a difference? The contributors consider this question from several different perspectives: the proper model of medicine, the role that the Christian moral tradition can play in medicine in a secular pluralistic society, how a Christian understanding of virtue can inform practices such as perinatal hospice and physician-assisted suicide, and whether or not appeals to Christian values can (or should) ground a physician’s right to conscientious objection.

scholarly journals Euthanasia and suicide: a medical and social discourse

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-112
Author(s):  
V. N. Ostapenko ◽  
I. V. Lantukh ◽  
A. P. Lantukh
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Adequate Quality ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Strong Explosion ◽  
The Right

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.

Szasz, suicide, and medical ethics

Thomas Szasz ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 55-64
Author(s):  
George J. Annas
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Suicide Prevention ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Suicidal Patients ◽  
Commit Suicide

Szasz objected to the medicalization of suicide, the legalization of suicide prevention, and especially the coercive role of psychiatry in this realm. He declared that, by medicalizing suicide, we banish the subject from discussion. What is meant by acceptable and unacceptable “suicide”? Who has a right to commit suicide? How does suicide implicate freedom? Does it reflect abortion jurisprudence? How do psychiatrists become suicide’s gatekeepers? Current phenomena (e.g., new physician-assisted suicide legislation) illuminate these and other issues (e.g., euthanasia, informed consent, informed refusal, the “right to die,”), all suggesting how Szasz would react to each. Suicide is legal, but is almost always considered a result of mental illness. Courts approve psychiatrists who want to commit “suicidal” patients involuntarily. Granting physicians prospective legal immunity for prescribing lethal drugs is, at best, a strange and tangential reaction to our inability to discuss suicide (and dying) rationally. Szasz got it right.

Bioethics, Public Health, and Firearm-Related Violence: Missing Links Between Bioethics and Public Health

1997 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leigh Turner
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Food Additives ◽  
Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Gun Control ◽  
Immunization Programs ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Emergency Rooms ◽  
Rich Variety ◽  
The Subject

Open any standard bioethics textbook, and therein can be found a host of subjects ranging from the abortion rights controversy to the morality of xenographic tissue transplantation. Just as there is a wide scope to the subject matter of bioethics, its practitioners come from a multitude of disciplines, including law, medicine, nursing, theology, philosophy, sociology, and anthropology. And yet, despite a rich variety of investigators and methods, bioethicists overlook numerous subjects that deserve to be addressed. In particular, they neglect issues of public health, preventive medicine, and social medicine. Although topics such as physician-assisted suicide, prenatal genetic testing, and the ethics of new reproductive technologies constitute the contemporary canon of bioethics and deserve sustained analysis, these subjects are not so significant that they should eclipse other issues. For example, gun control policies, the regulation of food additives. immunization programs, prenatal care, leave programs enabling employees to care for dying relatives, the provision of nutrition and medical care to the homeless, and the use of emergency rooms by the most impoverished citizens are all topics neglected by bioethicists.

Good Care of Dying Patients: The Alternative to Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia

1995 ◽  
Vol 43 (5) ◽  
pp. 553-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg A. Sachs ◽  
Judith C. Ahronheim ◽  
Jill A. Rhymes ◽  
Ladislav Volicer ◽  
Joanne Lynn
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Good Care ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Dying Patients

scholarly journals Death Anxiety, Immortality Projects and Happiness: A Utilitarian Argument Against the Legalization of Euthanasia

Conatus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 159
Author(s):  
Donovan Van der Haak
Keyword(s):  
Death Anxiety ◽  
Significant Degree ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Voluntary Euthanasia ◽  
Dying Patients ◽  
Human Decision ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Shed Light

The current, utilitarian debate on the relation between euthanasia and happiness focusses primarily on the subject of dying patients. Where some utilitarians stress how euthanasia may relieve suffering in the process of dying, others emphasize the importance of respecting the autonomy of others to make decisions like these themselves.  However, less attention has been paid to how legalizing euthanasia may impact the human decision-making processes of those still in a healthy and mentally sound state. This paper aims to shed light on this relatively underdeveloped subject within utilitarian theory. In particular, I focus on euthanasia’s most contested form: active, voluntary euthanasia. I draw on Ernst Becker,  who argues that moderate death anxiety stimulates people to work on ‘immortality projects,’ decisions that help them cope with the concept of death. Subsequently, I draw on several studies to defend the notion that immortality projects are indirectly conducive to happiness because they stimulate healthy decisions and long-term, human progress. Additionally, immortality projects counterbalance decisions that are based on an excessive drive for short-term pleasure. As euthanasia can make dying less painful, I argue it may diminish death anxiety to significant degree, and thereby also an incentive to work on immortality projects. This brings me to the conclusion that legalizing euthanasia is problematic from a utilitarian point of view, considering the observation that immortality projects are indirectly conducive to happiness.

Ethical and Legal Issues in Intensive Care

1997 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 298-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
John J. Paris ◽  
J. Cameron Muir ◽  
Frank E. Reardon
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Managed Care ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Physician Behavior ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Emerging Issues ◽  
Ethical And Legal Issues ◽  
Seriously Ill Patients

The findings of the SUPPORT study, the largest, most comprehensive and costly study ever undertaken on decision making for critically ill patients, revealed a wide ranging gap between patient preferences and physician behavior with regard to treatment decisions for seriously ill patients. The ethical issues raised by that disparity are intensified as we enter into a market-driven managed care delivery system. This essay explores recent ethical and legal developments on several emerging issues: the decision making process; DNR orders; brain death; withdrawal of treatment; physician assisted suicide; and the constraints of managed care.

Can Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Regulated Effectively?

1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franklin G. Miller ◽  
Howard Brody ◽  
Timothy E. Quill
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
New York ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Terminally Ill ◽  
Great Promise ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
On Demand ◽  
Premature Deaths ◽  
Dying Patients

With breathtalung speed, traditional criminal prohibitions against assisted suicide have been declared unconstitutional in twelve states, including California and New York. This poses great promise and great peril. The promise is that competent terminally ill patients, as a compassionate measure of last resort, will have the option of putting an end to their suffering by physician-assisted suicide (PAS). More sigmficant, legally permitting this controversial option may be a catalyst for doctors, health care institutions, and society to improve the care of the dying. PAS should be limited only to those relatively few competent patients who continue to suffer intolerably despite unrestrained efforts to palliate and who face a continued existence that they regard as worse than death. When dying patients know they will not be abandoned to miserable and pointless suffering if palliative care fails, they will be fortified to cope better with the process of dying.The immediate peril is that PAS will become a quick fix, available on demand to any patient diagnosed as terminally ill, thus bypassing palliative care and producing premature deaths.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document