Main article: Euthanasia in the United States
Felix Adler, circa 1913, the first prominent American to argue for permitting suicide in cases of chronic illness
The rise of the euthanasia movement in the United States coincided with the so-called Gilded Age – a time of social and technological change that encompassed an "individualistic conservatism that praised laissez-faire economics, scientific method, and rationalism", along with major depressions, industrialisation and conflict between corporations and labor unions.[34]:794 It was also a time that saw the development of the modern hospital system, seen as a factor in the emergence of the euthanasia debate.[37]
Robert Ingersoll argued for euthanasia, stating in 1894 that where someone is suffering from a terminal illness, such as terminal cancer, they should have a right to end their pain through suicide. Felix Adler offered a similar approach, although, unlike Ingersoll, Adler did not reject religion, instead arguing from an Ethical Culture framework. In 1891, Alder argued that those suffering from overwhelming pain should have the right to commit suicide, and, furthermore, that it should be permissible for a doctor to assist – thus making Adler the first "prominent American" to argue for suicide in cases where people were suffering from chronic illness.[38] Both Ingersoll and Adler argued for voluntary euthanasia of adults suffering from terminal ailments.[38] However, Dowbiggin argues that by breaking down prior moral objections to euthanasia and suicide, Ingersoll and Adler made it possible for others to stretch the definition of euthanasia.[39]
America also saw the first attempt to legalise euthanasia, when Henry Hunt introduced legislation into the General Assembly of Ohio in 1906.[40]:614 Hunt did so at the behest of Anna Hall, a wealthy heiress who was a major figure in the euthanasia movement during the early 20th century in the United States. Hall had watched her mother die after an extended battle with liver cancer, and had dedicated herself to ensuring that others would not have to endure the same suffering. Towards this end she engaged in an extensive letter writing campaign, recruited Lurana Sheldon and Maud Ballington Booth, and organised a debate on euthanasia at the annual meeting of the American Humane Association in 1905 – described by Jacob Appel as the first significant public debate on the topic in the 20th century.[40]:614–616 Hunt's bill called for the administration of an anesthetic to bring about a patient's death, so long as the person is of lawful age and sound mind, and was suffering from a fatal injury, an irrecoverable illness or great physical pain. It also required that the case be heard by a physician, required informed consent in front of three witnesses, and then required the attendance of three physicians who had to agree that the patient's recovery was impossible. A motion to reject the bill outright was voted down, but the bill itself failed to pass, 79 to 23.[34]:796[40]:618–619
Along with the Ohio euthanasia proposal, 1906 also witnessed the creation of a second bill: Assemblyman Ross Gregory introduced a proposal to permit euthanasia to the Iowa legislature. However, the Iowa legislation was far broader in scope than that offered in Ohio. It allowed for the death of any person of at least ten years of age who suffered from an ailment that would prove fatal and cause extreme pain, should they be of sound mind and express a desire to artificially hasten their death. In addition, it allowed for infants to be euthanised if they were sufficiently deformed, and permitted guardians to request euthanasia on behalf of their wards. The proposed legislation also imposed penalties on physicians who refused to perform euthanasia when requested: a 6–12 month prison term and a fine of between $200 and $1000. Unsurprisingly, the proposal proved to be controversial.[40]:619–621 It engendered considerable debate but failed to pass, having been withdrawn from consideration after being passed to the Committee on Public Health.[40]:623
After 1906 the euthanasia debate reduced in intensity, resurfacing periodically but not returning to the same level of debate until the 1930s in the United Kingdom.[34]:796
S in Britain
The Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Society was founded in 1935 by Charles Killick Millard (now called Dignity in Dying), a movement that campaigned for the legalisation of euthanasia in Great Britain.
In January 1936, King George V was given a fatal dose of morphine and cocaine in order to hasten his death. At the time he was suffering from cardiorespiratory failure, and the decision to end his life was made by his physician, Lord Dawson.[41] Although this remained a secret for over 50 years, the death of George V coincided with proposed legislation in the House of Lords to legalise euthanasia. The legislation came through the British Volunteer Euthanasia Legalisation Society.[42]
Euthanasia opponent Ian Dowbiggin argues that the early membership of the Euthanasia Society of America (ESA) reflected how many perceived euthanasia at the time, often seeing it as a eugenics matter rather than an issue concerning individual rights.[38] Dowbiggin argues that not every eugenist joined the ESA "solely for eugenic reasons", but he postulates that there were clear ideological connections between the eugenics and euthanasia movements.[38]
Nazi Euthanasia Program (Action T4)
Main article: Action T4
| The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until thedispute is resolved. (December 2011) |
A 24 July 1939 killing of a severely disabled infant in Nazi Germany was described in a BBC "Genocide Under the Nazis Timeline" as the first "state-sponsored euthanasia".[43] Parties that consented to the killing included Hitler's office, the parents, and the Reich Committee for the Scientific Registration of Serious and Congenitally Based Illnesses.[43] The Telegraph noted that the killing of the disabled infant—whose name was Gerhard Kretschmar, born blind, with missing limbs, subject to convulsions, and reportedly "an idiot"— provided "the rationale for a secret Nazi decree that led to 'mercy killings' of almost 300,000 mentally and physically handicapped people".[44] While Kretchmar's killing received parental consent, most of the 5,000 to 8,000 children killed afterwards were forcibly taken from their parents.[43][44]
The "euthanasia campaign" of mass murder gathered momentum on 14 January 1940 when the "handicapped" were killed with gas vans and killing centres, eventually leading to the deaths of 70,000 adult Germans.[45] Professor Robert Jay Lifton, author of The Nazi Doctors and a leading authority on the T4 program, contrasts this program with what he considers to be a genuine euthanasia. He explains that the Nazi version of "euthanasia" was based on the work of Adolf Jost, who published The Right to Death (Das Recht auf den Tod) in 1895. Lifton writes: "Jost argued that control over the death of the individual must ultimately belong to the social organism, the state. This concept is in direct opposition to the Anglo-American concept of euthanasia, which emphasizes the individual's 'right to die' or 'right to death' or 'right to his or her own death,' as the ultimate human claim. In contrast, Jost was pointing to the state's right to kill.... Ultimately the argument was biological: 'The rights to death [are] the key to the fitness of life.' The state must own death—must kill—in order to keep the social organism alive and healthy."[46]
In modern terms, the use of "euthanasia" in the context of Action T4 is seen to be a euphemism to disguise a program of genocide, in which people were killed on the grounds of "disabilities, religious beliefs, and discordant individual values".[47] Compared to the discussions of euthanasia that emerged post-war, the Nazi program may have been worded in terms that appear similar to the modern use of "euthanasia", but there was no "mercy" and the patients were not necessarily terminally ill.[47] Despite these differences, historian and euthanasia opponent Ian Dowbigginwrites that "the origins of Nazi euthanasia, like those of the American euthanasia movement, predate the Third Reich and were intertwined with the history of eugenics and Social Darwinism, and with efforts to discredit traditional morality and ethics."[38]:65
Euthanasia debate
Historically, the euthanasia debate has tended to focus on a number of key concerns. According to euthanasia opponent Ezekiel Emanuel, proponents of euthanasia have presented four main arguments: a) that people have a right to self-determination, and thus should be allowed to choose their own fate; b) assisting a subject to die might be a better choice than requiring that they continue to suffer; c) the distinction between passive euthanasia, which is often permitted, and active euthanasia, which is not substantive (or that the underlying principle–the doctrine of double effect–is unreasonable or unsound); and d) permitting euthanasia will not necessarily lead to unacceptable consequences. Pro-euthanasia activists often point to countries like the Netherlandsand Belgium, and states like Oregon, where euthanasia has been legalized, to argue that it is mostly unproblematic.
Similarly, Emanuel argues that there are four major arguments presented by opponents of euthanasia: a) not all deaths are painful; b) alternatives, such as cessation of active treatment, combined with the use of effective pain relief, are available; c) the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is morally significant; and d) legalising euthanasia will place society on aslippery slope,[48] which will lead to unacceptable consequences.[34]:797–8
Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, an eminent Swiss American psychiatrist (a pioneer in near-death studies and the author of the groundbreaking book On Death and Dying (1969), where she first discussed her theory of the five stages of grief), encouraged the hospice care movement, believing that euthanasia prevents people from completing their 'unfinished business'.[ citation needed ]
Legal status
| The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (November 2011) |
Main article: Legality of euthanasia
West's Encyclopedia of American Law states that "a 'mercy killing' or euthanasia is generally considered to be a criminal homicide"[49] and is normally used as a synonym of homicide committed at a request made by the patient.[50]
The judicial sense of the term "homicide" includes any intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, even to relieve intractable suffering.[50][51][52] Not all homicide is unlawful.[53] Two designations of homicide that carry no criminal punishment are justifiable and excusable homicide.[53] In most countries this is not the status of euthanasia. The term "euthanasia" is usually confined to the active variety; the University of Washington website states that "euthanasia generally means that the physician would act directly, for instance by giving a lethal injection, to end the patient's life".[54] Physician-assisted suicide is thus not classified as euthanasia by the US State of Oregon, where it is legal under the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, and despite its name, it is not legally classified as suicide either.[55] Unlike physician-assisted suicide, withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatments with patient consent (voluntary) is almost unanimously considered, at least in the United States, to be legal.[56] The use of pain medication in order to relieve suffering, even if it hastens death, has been held as legal in several court decisions.[54]
Some governments around the world have legalized voluntary euthanasia but generally it remains as a criminal homicide. In the Netherlands and Belgium, where euthanasia has been legalized, it still remains homicide although it is not prosecuted and not punishable if the perpetrator (the doctor) meets certain legal exceptions.[57][58][59][60]
Physician sentiment
A survey in the United States of more than 10,000 physicians came to the result that approximately 16% of physicians would ever consider halting life-sustaining therapy because the family demands it, even if they believed that it was premature. Approximately 55% would not, and for the remaining 29%, it would depend on circumstances.[61]
This study also stated that approximately 46% of physicians agree that physician-assisted suicide should be allowed in some cases; 41% do not, and the remaining 14% think it depends.[61]
In the United Kingdom, the pro-assisted dying group Dignity in Dying cite conflicting research on attitudes by doctors to assisted dying: with a 2009 Palliative Medicine -published survey showing 64% support (to 34% oppose) for assisted dying in cases where a patient has an incurable and painful disease, while 49% of doctors in a study published in BMC Medical Ethics oppose changing the law on assisted dying to 39% in favour.[62]
Euthanasia (Greek ευ-«good» + θάνατος «death») - the practice of terminating the life of a person suffering from an incurable disease, experiencing unbearable suffering.
The term "euthanasia" is now used in various senses: accelerating the death of those who are experiencing severe suffering, the cessation of life "extra" people, care for the dying, providing opportunities to man die.
"Euthanasia" is also sometimes called euthanasia of animals, including laboratory [1] and a stray [2] animals.
Contents [ remove ]
1 Types of euthanasia
2 History
3 The current situation
4 Relation to euthanasia
4.1 Euthanasia and the Hippocratic Oath
4.2 Arguments "for" and "against"
4.3 Legislative regulation
5 Euthanasia and politics
6 See also
7 Notes
8 References
9 Links
Types of euthanasia [edit | edit source code ]
In theory, there are two kinds of euthanasia: passive euthanasia (the intentional termination of medical supportive care of the patient) and active euthanasia (administering medications dying or other actions that result in a quick and painless death). By active euthanasia and suicide are often referred to medical assistance (providing the patient at his request drugs that reduce life).
In addition, it is necessary to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is carried out at the request of the patient or a previously expressed consent (for example, in the U.S. a common practice in advance and in a legally valid form to express their will in the event of irreversible coma). Involuntary euthanasia is carried out without the consent of the patient, as a rule, is unconscious. It is based on solutions relatives, guardians, etc. The Council on Ethics and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association admits here that these solutions can be " unfounded." However, in the case of a "competent decisions," it is believed that
People have the right to make decisions that others consider unreasonable, since their selection goes through competence based process and is compatible with their personal values .
History [edit | edit source code ]
The term "euthanasia" first coined by Francis Bacon in the XVI century to define the " easy death."
"Concise Oxford Dictionary " gives three meanings of the word "euthanasia": the first - " quiet and easy death ", the second - " means to do so ", the third - the "action for its implementation."
Before the Second World War, the idea of euthanasia was widespread in several European countries. While euthanasia and eugenics enjoyed quite a high popularity in the medical community of European countries, but the actions of the Nazis, such as killing a program T-4, long discredited these ideas. Among famous people mention Freud, who, because of an incurable form of cancer of the oral cavity with the help of Dr. Schur committed euthanasia in his London home September 23, 1939, before 31 survived surgery to remove the tumor under local anesthesia (anesthesia in such operations while not used).
The current situation [edit | edit source code ]
Problems with the content of the article
Perhaps this section contains original research.
Add reference sources, otherwise it may be removed.
Additional information may be on the talk page. (14 March 2013)
51.5% and 44.8%, Russian doctors aged 41-50 and 51-65, respectively, year on a poll question (1991-1992). " Whether you think euthanasia acceptable? " Answered " never really thought about it (and) ", along with the answer" yes "or " no. " A positive response was given 49 % of physicians aged 21-30 years [3].
Attitude towards euthanasia [edit | edit source code ]
Euthanasia and the Hippocratic Oath [edit | edit source code ]
The idea of euthanasia in the late twentieth century is becoming more and more popular, along with increased use of other important concepts of quality of life. The Hippocratic Oath in the traditional manner contrary to implement the idea of euthanasia [ source not specified 259 days ].
Arguments "for" and "against" [edit | edit source code ]
A textbook on ethics [4] [ unauthoritative source? ] Gives some general arguments "for" and "against" euthanasia concerning its admissibility or inadmissibility of principle:
Arguments "for" arguments "against"
1. Life is good only when the whole fun prevail over suffering and positive emotions - over negative.
Carried out not choose between life - suffering and life - blessing, between life in the form of suffering and lack of life in any form.
In fact, recognizes the right to suicide.
2. Life can be considered a boon as long as it has a human form, exists in the field of culture, moral relations.
Life even in the form of plants causes a certain awe. Therefore it is impossible to deny that people who find themselves on vegetable quality of life.
Within the world, recognizing the supreme good life, euthanasia is unacceptable.
3. Maintaining life stages of dying is costly. This argument should be taken into account within the practical solutions, but not when it comes to the moral justification of the act of euthanasia.
Legislative regulation [edit | edit source code ]
Pioneer in the legalization of voluntary death was the Netherlands. In 1984, the Supreme Court recognized the voluntary euthanasia acceptable.
Euthanasia was legalized in Belgium in 2002. In 2003, euthanasia helped to leave a life of 200 terminally ill patients, and in 2004 - 360 patients. In the U.S. law authorizing medical assistance in the implementation of suicide in patients with end-stage, was adopted (with some restrictions) in November 1994 in Oregon, and in November 2008 in Washington. In March 2012, the Governor of Georgia Nathan Deal signed a bill prohibiting euthanasia. [5]
In Luxembourg, allowed to help terminally ill people leave life [ source not specified 771 days].
Azerbaijan ban legislated euthanasia and euthanasia of the Criminal Code " punished with correctional labor for up to two years or imprisonment for up to three years with deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term up to three years or without it " [6].
In Russia, euthanasia is prohibited by law Federal Law № 323 "On the basis of health protection in the Russian Federation". [7]
Euthanasia and Politics [edit | edit source code ]
Political activity aimed at persuading public opinion admissibility of euthanasia, that is responding to the request of a terminally ill on accelerating his death by any action or means held in many countries. Proponents of euthanasia argue their position by humanitarian considerations [8], the opponents also believe its legalization of assisted suicide, as well as various criminal provleniya custodial life. In some countries, such as Australia, the promotion of euthanasia entails criminal penalties under articles " incitement to suicide," " assisted suicide " and other [9]. In some countries (Netherlands, Belgium) euthanasia is permitted by law.
In Russia, April 16, 2007 Deputy of the State Assembly of Bashkortostan Edward Murzin submitted a proposal to amend the Criminal Code, which will be required after the possible legalization of euthanasia [10]. At the same time, the Council of the Federation has prepared a bill to legalize euthanasia in Russia, which immediately caused a wave of criticism from the public [11] [ 12].
