The Legitimacy of Prohibiting Euthanasia

Article

Euthanasia and assisted suicide in selected European countries and US states: systematic literature review

BACKGROUND Legal in some European countries and US states, physician-assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia remain under debate in these and other countries. OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to examine numbers, characteristics, and trends over time for assisted dying in regions where these practices are legal: Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Oregon, Washington, and Montana. DESIGN This was a systematic review of journal articles and official reports. Medline and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies, from inception to end of 2012. We searched the websites of the health authorities of all eligible countries and states for reports on physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia and included publications that reported on cases of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia. We extracted information on the total number of assisted deaths, its proportion in relation to all deaths, and socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of individuals assisted to die. RESULTS A total of 1043 publications were identified; 25 articles and reports were retained, including series of reported cases, physician surveys, and reviews of death certificates. The percentage of physician-assisted deaths among all deaths ranged from 0.1%-0.2% in the US states and Luxembourg to 1.8%-2.9% in the Netherlands. Percentages of cases reported to the authorities increased in most countries over time. The typical person who died with assistance was a well-educated male cancer patient, aged 60-85 years. CONCLUSIONS Despite some common characteristics between countries, we found wide variation in the extent and specific characteristics of those who died an assisted death.

Eutanásia ativa

Euthanasia, especially the active one, has always been an extremely discussed subject, which goes further pure dogmatics and transcends the strictly legal field. A reflection about such issue makes us re-think on what it implies for all the involved without ever loosing sight of the fact that admitting a legalization is, in a legal system as ours, to admit the lack of punishment of an homicide act or an assistance to suicide. However, burying in mind the foreign experiences, isn’t there a possibility of working on a path that respects both the basis of our legal system and the rest of the interests involved? And what interests would those be? How to admit such a path? Based on what assumptions? The present study proposes a discovery of paths and not the search for dead ends, creating definitive answers. The purpose of this dissertation is to explore the existing structure of the Portuguese legal system on these matters, in a path that is until now mostly in favour of punishment, based on homicide or assisted suicide crimes. Along with the Portuguese dynamic, we want to analyse legal systems that opted by decriminalization and, based on those experiences, shared with our legal culture, scan the viability of a decriminalization procedure. What paths would be viable for such a decriminalization in Portuguese criminal territory? The scope is only to open the eyes of who always wanted to keep them shut, or to who just never tried to open them, because at the end of the day it will always be a discussion that we want to keep light up, since that what we are here discussing is life. We want discussion, not imposition.

Lignes d'argumentation de la littérature relative à la non-initiation, l'arrêt de traitement, et l'euthanasie de patients inaptes

Des décisions médicales en fin de vie sont souvent prises pour des patients inaptes. Nous avons souhaité connaître les argumentations éthiques entourant ces décisions difficiles. Notre objectif était de pouvoir comprendre et apprécier ces lignes d’argumentation. Pour atteindre cet objectif, nous avons répertorié et analysé les lignes argumentatives présentes dans des articles scientifiques, incluant les sections de correspondance et commentaires des journaux savants. Afin d’éviter que les résultats de notre analyse soient trop influencés par les caractéristiques d’un problème médical spécifique, nous avons décidé d’analyser des situations cliniques distinctes. Les sujets spécifiques étudiés sont la non-initiation du traitement antibiotique chez des patients déments souffrant de pneumonie, et l’euthanasie de nouveau-nés lourdement hypothéqués selon le protocole de Groningen. Notre analyse des lignes d’argumentation répertoriées à partir des débats entourant ces sujets spécifiques a révélé des caractéristiques communes. D’abord, les arguments avancés avaient une forte tendance à viser la normativité. Ensuite, les lignes d’argumentation répertoriées étaient principalement axées sur les patients inaptes et excluaient largement les intérêts d’autrui. Nous n’avons trouvé aucune des lignes d’argumentation à visée normative répertoriés concluante. De plus, nous avons trouvé que l’exclusion catégorique d’arguments visant l’intérêt d’autrui des considérations entrainait l’impossibilité d’ évaluer leur validité et de les exclure définitivement de l’argumentaire. Leur présence non-explicite et cachée dans les raisonnements motivant les décisions ne pouvait alors pas être exclue non plus. Pour mieux mettre en relief ces conclusions, nous avons rédigé un commentaire inspiré par les argumentaires avancés dans le contexte de l’arrêt de traitement de Terri Schiavo, patiente en état végétatif persistant. Nous pensons que l’utilisation d’un argumentaire qui viserait davantage à rendre les actions intelligibles, et sans visée normative immédiate, pourrait contribuer à une meilleure compréhension réciproque des participants au débat. Une telle argumentation nous semble aussi mieux adaptée à la complexité et l’unicité de chaque cas. Nous pensons qu’elle pourrait mieux décrire les motivations de tous les acteurs participant à la décision, et ainsi contribuer à une plus grande transparence. Cette transparence pourrait renforcer la confiance dans l’authenticité du débat, et ainsi contribuer à une meilleure légitimation de pratiques cliniques.

Managing Profound Suffering at the End-of-Life: Should expanding access to continuous deep sedation be the priority?

Commentaire / Commentary

Influencia de las creencias religiosas cristianas en la decisión de realizar suicidio asistido al final de la vida

El suicidio asistido como una posible opción al final de la vida, es una idea que hasta ahora está siendo considerada, ya que existen argumentaciones a favor y en contra que han generado controvertidos debates a su alrededor. Algunos de los argumentos en contra están basados en los principios de las instituciones religiosas de orden cristiano, las cuales defienden el valor sagrado de la vida de las personas y la aceptación del sufrimiento como un acto de amor profundo y sumisión a los mandatos de Dios, el creador. Mientras del lado contrario, se encuentran quienes defienden el procedimiento, impulsando la autonomía y la autodeterminación que cada persona tiene sobre su vida. La revisión de la literatura realizada no sólo permite ampliar los argumentos de estas dos posiciones, sino que también permite conocer la historia del suicidio asistido, la posición que este procedimiento tiene en diferentes países del mundo, incluyendo a Colombia, y finalmente se presentan las contribuciones de la psicología entorno al procedimiento en discusión.

Medical treatment and the good death: an ethical analysis of euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, and the right to die

Frequent advances in medical technologies have brought fonh many innovative treatments that allow medical teams to treal many patients with grave illness and serious trauma who would have died only a few years earlier. These changes have given some patients a second chance at life, but for others. these new treatments have merely prolonged their dying. Instead of dying relatively painlessly, these unfortunate patients often suffer from painful tenninal illnesses or exist in a comatose state that robs them of their dignity, since they cannot survive without advanced and often dehumanizing forms of treatment. Due to many of these concerns, euthanasia has become a central issue in medical ethics. Additionally, the debate is impacted by those who believe that patients have the right make choices about the method and timing of their deaths. Euthanasia is defined as a deliberate act by a physician to hasten the death of a patient, whether through active methods such as an injection of morphine, or through the withdrawal of advanced forms of medical care, for reasons of mercy because of a medical condition that they have. This study explores the question of whether euthanasia is an ethical practice and, as determined by ethical theories and professional codes of ethics, whether the physician is allowed to provide the means to give the patient a path to a "good death," rather than one filled with physical and mental suffering. The paper also asks if there is a relevant moral difference between the active and passive forms of euthanasia and seeks to define requirements to ensure fully voluntary decision making through an evaluation of the factors necessary to produce fully informed consent. Additionally, the proper treatments for patients who suffer from painful terminal illnesses, those who exist in persistent vegetative states and infants born with many diverse medical problems are examined. The ultimate conclusions that are reached in the paper are that euthanasia is an ethical practice in certain specific circumstances for patients who have a very low quality of life due to pain, illness or serious mental deficits as a result of irreversible coma, persistent vegetative state or end-stage clinical dementia. This is defended by the fact that the rights of the patient to determine his or her own fate and to autonomously decide the way that he or she dies are paramount to all other factors in decisions of life and death. There are also circumstances where decisions can be made by health care teams in conjunction with the family to hasten the deaths of incompetent patients when continued existence is clearly not in their best interest, as is the case of infants who are born with serious physical anomalies, who are either 'born dying' or have no prospect for a life that is of a reasonable quality. I have rejected the distinction between active and passive methods of euthanasia and have instead chosen to focus on the intentions of the treating physician and the voluntary nature of the patient's request. When applied in equivalent circumstances, active and passive methods of euthanasia produce the same effects, and if the choice to hasten the death of the patient is ethical, then the use of either method can be accepted. The use of active methods of euthanasia and active forms of withdrawal of life support, such as the removal of a respirator are both conscious decisions to end the life of the patient and both bring death within a short period of time. It is false to maintain a distinction that believes that one is active killing. whereas the other form only allows nature to take it's course. Both are conscious choices to hasten the patient's death and should be evaluated as such. Additionally, through an examination of the Hippocratic Oath, and statements made by the American Medical Association and the American College of physicians, it can be shown that the ideals that the medical profession maintains and the respect for the interests of the patient that it holds allows the physician to give aid to patients who wish to choose death as an alternative to continued suffering. The physician is also allowed to and in some circumstances, is morally required, to help dying patients whether through active or passive forms of euthanasia or through assisted suicide. Euthanasia is a difficult topic to think about, but in the end, we should support the choice that respects the patient's autonomous choice or clear best interest and the respect that we have for their dignity and personal worth.

Does being against euthanasia legislation equate to being anti-euthanasia?

This study investigated issues raised in qualitative data from our previous studies of health professionals and community members, which suggested that being opposed to euthanasia legislation did not necessarily equate to being anti-euthanasia per se. A postal survey of 1002 medical practitioners, 1000 nurses and 1200 community members was undertaken. In addition to a direct question on changing the law to allow active voluntary euthanasia (AVE), four statements assessed attitudes to euthanasia with or without a change in legislation. Responses were received from 405 doctors (43%), 429 nurses (45%) and 405 community members (38%). Compared with previous studies there was a slight increase in support for a change in the law from medical practitioners, a slight decrease in support from community members and almost no change among nurses. Different interpretations of the results of the four attitude questions are possible, depending on the perspective of the interpreter.