viernes, 13 de marzo de 2009

Euthanasia


Euthanasia: the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. (The key word here is "intentional". If death is not intended, it is not an act of euthanasia)
Voluntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed has requested to be killed.
Non-voluntary: When the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent.
Involuntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the contrary.
Assisted suicide: Someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they will be used for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps another person to kill themselves it is called "physician assisted suicide."
Euthanasia By Action: Intentionally causing a person's death by performing an action such as by giving a lethal injection.
Euthanasia By Omission: Intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care or food and water.
What Euthanasia is NOT: There is no euthanasia unless the death is intentionally caused by what was done or not done. Thus, some medical actions that are often labeled "passive euthanasia" are no form of euthanasia, since the intention to take life is lacking. These acts include not commencing treatment that would not provide a benefit to the patient, withdrawing treatment that has been shown to be ineffective, too burdensome or is unwanted, and the giving of high doses of pain-killers that may endanger life, when they have been shown to be necessary. All those are part of good medical practice, endorsed by law, when they are properly carried out..


EUTHANASIA AND THE LAW:


Efforts to change government policies on euthanasia in the 20th century have met limited success in Western countries. Country policies are described below in alphabetical order, followed by the exceptional case of the Netherlands. Euthanasia policies have also been developed by a variety of NGOs, most notably medical associations and advocacy organizations.
JAPAN
To have the right to the euthanasia, in Japan they need some different conditions.
In the case of passive euthanasia, three conditions must be met:
the patient must be suffering from an incurable disease, and in the final stages of the disease from which he/she/ is unlikely to make a recovery;
the patient must give express consent to stopping treatment, and this consent must be obtained and preserved prior to death. If the patient is not able to give clear consent, their consent may be determined from a pre-written document such as a living will or the testimony of the family;
the patient may be passively euthanized by stopping medical treatment, chemotherapy, dialysis, artificial respiration, blood transfusion, IV drip, etc.
For active euthanasia, four conditions must be met:
the patient must be suffering from unbearable physical pain;
death must be inevitable and drawing near;
the patient must give consent. (Unlike passive euthanasia, living wills and family consent will not suffice.)
the physician must have (ineffectively) exhausted all other measures of pain relief.

UNITED STATES

Euthanasia is illegal in most of the United States. Attempts to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide resulted in ballot initiatives and "legislation bills" within the United States of America in the last 20 years. For example, Washington voters saw Ballot Initiative 119 in 1991, California placed Proposition 161 on the ballot in 1992, Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act in 1997, Michigan included Proposal B in their ballot in 1998, and Washington's Initiative 1000 on the ballot in 2008.
LUXEMBOURG
The country's parliament passed a bill legalising euthanasia on 20 February 2008 in the first reading with 30 of 59 votes in favour; it still has to pass a second reading before coming into effect.
INDIA

In a first step towards legalising euthanasia, The Law Commission of India, Ministry of Law and Justice has decided to recommend to the Indian Government to allow terminally ill to end their lives.

TESTAMENTS


This right is different depending on which country you are. Here, in Spain it is allowed but in some other countries it is not, in Washington, USA for example.
This testament says, that, in certain conditions, for example if you have an irreversible illness, it allows you to finish with your live.
NEWS ABOUT EUTHANASIA IN THE MEDIA:
London, England (LifeNews.com) -- The British Court of Appeal is holding a hearing today on the case of Debbie Purdy, a woman who wants to travel to Switzerland to kill herself at a euthanasia center and doesn't want her family charged when they return. Purdy filed a lawsuit against officials in England to make them reveal when they will charge someone.Purdy has multiple sclerosis and she plans to go to a Dignitas euthanasia facility in Switzerland to kill herself as the condition worsens.British law calls for 14 years in prison for assisting a suicide, although none of the relatives or friends of the people who have killed themselves in western Europe have been brought to trial for violating the law by taking their loved ones to the centers.In October, the British High Court ruled against Purdy and her attorneys appealed the decision.During the hearing, Lord Pannick QC, appearing for Purdy, argued the High Court judges erred. He said the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, should be required to issue specific policy guidelines.The appeals court has also heard from a leading pro-life group that has been allowed to get involved.case. Paul Tully, SPUC general secretary, talked about the latest news in the legal battle."We have great sympathy for Mrs Purdy because of her medical condition, but her legal case is misguided and dangerous," he said. "Suicide is a course of action which everyone in society, from individuals to parliament naturally discourages. If we favor suicide for individuals who are suffering, we send a message to all those who are sick or disabled that their lives are not worthwhile," he said."We welcome the involvement of the DPP in this case and we commend his legal arguments. His firm resistance to this attack on the law is vital to upholding fundamental rights and freedoms of everyone," Tully added.Tully say the case is another attack on the rights of the vulnerable."We are appalled by the continuing attacks on the right to life of those who are elderly or disabled or suffering from progressive degenerative disease," he said.After the previous high court decision, Purdy said she would go to Switzerland alone if she can't guarantee her husband wouldn't be charged.Meanwhile, Starmer indicated last month that he probably won't prosecute any cases.Starmer spoke in light of his decision at the end of last year not to prosecute the family of 23-year-old rugby player Daniel James, whose family took him to a Dignitas center in Switzerland to die. He admitted there was “sufficient evidence” to prosecute but claimed it would not be in the public interest to do so.



USUAL PRACTICIES (AROUND THE WORLD):
Multivariate logistic regression analysis suggested that oncologists were significantly less likely to have performed euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide if they were unwilling to increase the dose of intravenous morphine for pain control in a patient with breast cancer who had excruciating pain (OR, 0.58 [CI, 0.43 to 0.79]) and if they reported that their training in end-of-life care was helpful (OR, 0.86 [CI, 0.79 to 0.95]). Conversely, oncologists who were less spiritual were significantly more likely to have performed euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (OR, 1.77 [CI, 1.40 to 2.26]). Of note, 1.5% of oncologists who reported that they could get their dying patients all necessary care had performed euthanasia, whereas 6.2% of oncologists who reported that administrative, fiscal, and structural barriers allowed them to provide their dying patient with only some of the care they needed had performed euthanasia.

GROUPS IN FAVOUR AND AGAINST EUTHANASIA:
Reasons given against voluntary euthanasia(62%):
Professional role: Critics argue that voluntary euthanasia could unduly compromise the professional roles of health care employees, especially doctors. They point out that European physicians of previous centuries traditionally swore some variation of the Hippocratic Oath, which in its ancient form excluded euthanasia: "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.." However, since the 1970s, this oath has largely fallen out of use.
Moral: Some people consider euthanasia of some or all types to be morally unacceptable.[8] This view usually treats euthanasia to be a type of murder and voluntary euthanasia as a type of suicide, the morality of which is the subject of active debate.
Theological: Voluntary euthanasia has often been rejected as a violation of the sanctity of human life. Specifically, some Christians argue that human life ultimately belongs to God, so that humans should not be the ones to make the choice to end life. Orthodox Judaism takes basically the same approach, however, it is more open minded, and does, given certain circumstances, allow for euthanasia to be exercised under passive or non-aggressive means. Accordingly, some theologians and other religious thinkers consider voluntary euthanasia (and suicide generally) as sinful acts, i.e. unjustified killings.
Feasibility of implementation: Euthanasia can only be considered "voluntary" if a patient is mentally competent to make the decision, i.e., has a rational understanding of options and consequences. Competence can be difficult to determine or even define.
Necessity: If there is some reason to believe the cause of a patient's illness or suffering is or will soon be curable, the correct action is sometimes considered to attempt to bring about a cure or engage in palliative care.
Wishes of Family: Family members often desire to spend as much time with their loved ones as possible before they die.
Consent under pressure: Given the economic grounds for voluntary euthanasia (VE), critics of VE are concerned that patients may experience psychological pressure to consent to voluntary euthanasia rather than be a financial burden on their families. [27] Even where health costs are mostly covered by public money, as in various European countries, VE critics are concerned that hospital personnel would have an economic incentive to advise or pressure people toward euthanasia consent.

Reasons given for voluntary euthanasia(31%):
Choice: Proponents of VE emphasize that choice is a fundamental principle for liberal democracies and free market systems.
Quality of Life: The pain and suffering a person feels during a disease, even with pain relievers, can be incomprehensible to a person who has not gone through it. Even without considering the physical pain, it is often difficult for patients to overcome the emotional pain of losing their independence. Economic costs and human resources: Today in many countries there is a shortage of hospital space. The energy of doctors and hospital beds could be used for people whose lives could be saved instead of continuing the life of those who want to die which increases the general quality of care and shortens hospital waiting lists. It is a burden to keep people alive past the point they can contribute to society, especially if the resources used could be spent on a curable ailment.
Publicado por en

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario

Suscribirse a: Enviar comentarios (Atom)