8/3/2019 Rashed 202

1/16

Under What ConditionsEuthanasia Should Be

Legalized?

C & E American University

Baakline Campus

Submitted to the

Department of Computer Science

Ms Soha Riman

By

Rashed Abou Hadir

8/3/2019 Rashed 202

2/16

Abstract

"Euthanasia is a combination of two Greek words Eu (easy, painless orhappy) and 'thanatos' meaning death. So the essential meaning of the term

Euthanasia is a pain-free and happy end to life. This paper is a deeper look

into what euthanasia is all about. Many researchers support the right of a

terminally-ill patient to die and what will happen if the right becomes an

obligation, but does this mean we need a "right to die" law? The researcher

looks at the legal side, as well as the emotional pain it causes to those around

the sufferers and argues whether euthanasia should be legalized or not.

8/3/2019 Rashed 202

3/16

Introduction

When most people think of euthanasia, they think merely of death. Death

usually has a negative connotation to it although often it may be beneficial.

This understanding is fundamental to euthanasia. The root words foreuthanasia, eu and thantos, mean good and death respectively. This good

death is often attacked by people whose ideas are shaped by religion, media,

and misinformation. In reality, euthanasia provides a way for humans in

unbearable and incurable situations to be relieved of their affliction. Because

of its current illegality, many people suffer, rendering them corpse of

humiliation that are unable to receive the treatment that the average

household pet receives.

Purpose of the Study

Legalizing euthanasia would be a turn for the better. Once it was legalized,

euthanasia would come out into the open and be an official medical

procedure. The researcher targeted his study assuming that legalization and

acceptance of euthanasia would benefit humanity.

Research Questions

1. Why societies and religions are against legalization of euthanasia?

2. Should dying patients have the right to order their doctors not to start

or continue medical treatment?

3. Should doctors be protected from prosecution if they shorten a

patients life expectancy with pain-killing drugs?

Body

8/3/2019 Rashed 202

4/16

History

For over 700 years, the Anglo American common law tradition has punished

or otherwise disapproved both suicide and assisting suicide. That suicide

remained a grievous, though no felonious, wrong is confirmed by the factthat colonial and early state legislatures and courts did not retreat from

prohibiting assisting suicide. Swift, in his early 19th century treatise on the

laws of Connecticut, stated that if one counsels another to commit suicide,

and the other by reason of the advice kills himself, the advisor is guilty of

murder as principal. This was the well established common law view, now if

the murder of one's self is felony, the accessory is equally guilty as if he had

aided and abetted in the murder, as was the similar principle that the consent

of a homicide victim is "wholly immaterial to the guilt of the person who

cause his death, The right to life and to personal security is not only sacred

in the estimation of the common law, but it is inalienable. And the

prohibitions against assisting suicide never contained exceptions for those

who were near death. Rather, the life of those to whom life had become a

burden--of those who were hopelessly diseased or fatally wounded--nay,

even the lives of criminals condemned to death, were under the protection of

law, equally as the lives of those who were in the full tide of life's

enjoyment, and anxious to continue to live. The earliest American statute

explicitly to outlaw assisting suicide was enacted in New York in 1828, and

many of the new States and Territories followed New York's example. A

New York commission led by Dudley Field drafted a criminal code that prohibited "aiding" a suicide and, specifically, furnishing another person

with any deadly weapon or poisonous drug, knowing that such person

intends to use such weapon or drug in taking his own life. Though deeply

rooted, the States assisted suicide bans have in recent years been reexamined

and, generally, reaffirmed. Many States of America now permit "living

wills," surrogate health care decision making, and the withdrawal or refusal

of life sustaining medical treatment. At the same time voters and legislators

continue for the most part to reaffirm their States prohibitions on assisting

suicide. In October of 1939 amid the turmoil of the outbreak of war Hitlerordered widespread "mercy killing" of the sick and disabled. The Nazi

euthanasia program to eliminate "life unworthy of life" at first focused on

newborns and very young children and quickly expanded to include older

disabled children and adults. Hitler's decree of October, 1939, typed on his

personal stationery and back dated to Sept. 1, enlarged 'the authority of

certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons

8/3/2019 Rashed 202

5/16

who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful

diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death.

Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three who

showed symptoms of mental retardation, physical deformity, or other

symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich Health Ministry. In

1935 The Euthanasia Society of England was formed to promote euthanasia.

Then Australia's Northern Territory approved a euthanasia bill and went into

effect in 1996 and was overturned by the Australian Parliament in 1997.

Next year the U.S. state of Oregon legalizes assisted suicide, finally in

2000/2002 The Netherlands, and Belgium legalizes euthanasia.

Euthanasia: Society and Religion

The opinion that euthanasia is morally permissible goes back to Socrates,

Plato, and the Stoics. It is rejected in traditional Christian belief, chiefly

because it is thought to come within the prohibition of murder in the Ten

Commandments. The arguments are usually based on the beliefs that life is

given by God, and that human beings are made in God's image. Some

churches also emphasize the importance of not interfering with the natural

process of death.

Other wise the Islam said that since we did not create ourselves we do not

own our bodies, we are entrusted with them for care, nurture and safe

keeping. God is the owner and giver of life and his rights in giving and in

taking are not to be violated. Attempting to kill another person is a crime in

Islam as well as a grave sin. The Qur'an says: "Do not kill yourselves, forverily Allah has been to you most Merciful".

The concept of a life not worthy of living does not exist in most religions

such as justification of taking life to escape suffering is not acceptable.There is still another dimension to the question of pain and suffering.

Patience and endurance are highly regarded and highly rewarded values.

When means of preventing or alleviating pain fall short, this spiritual

dimension can be very effectively called upon to support the patient who

believes that accepting and standing unavoidable pain will be to his/her

credit in the hereafter, the real and enduring life. To a person who does not

8/3/2019 Rashed 202

6/16

believe in a hereafter this might sound like nonsense, but to one who does,

euthanasia is certainly nonsense.

Societies considered Euthanasia as is a complex matter; there are many

different types of euthanasia, each of which has its own advantages and

disadvantages. It can be said that all types of euthanasia have an impact onsociety - or perhaps society has an impact on them. Voluntary euthanasia is

the type that is normally discussed, yet discussions about voluntary

euthanasia tend to include involuntary euthanasia as well, as the boundaries

between the two can blur. People suffering from terminal diseases are often

faced with the prospect of experiencing great deals of pain as the disease

progressively worsens until it kills them. This prospect may be so

frightening for them that they would rather end their lives before they have

to face it. The ethical question is whether people should be given assistance

in killing themselves, or if they should be forced to suffer the pain and

indignity caused by terminal illness. If it's only people that want to die that

are going to be affected then why should other people be worried? The

answer is that death rarely affects just the person that dies. We are all

individuals; we are free to make our own choices about what we do, the way

we live our lives and so on - within the confines of the law. Society is made

up of individuals and groups of individuals (as in groups of different

religious faiths). People have certain rights as individuals, but society has

rights of it's own as well: the rights of an individual must not interfere with

the rights of another.

It is feared that by allowing certain individuals help in ending their lives,other groups of more vulnerable people will become at risk of feeling

pressured into taking that option themselves. Groups that represent disabled

people are against the legalization of euthanasia on the grounds that such

groups of vulnerable people would feel obliged to opt for euthanasia as they

may see themselves as a burden to society.

Why Euthanasia should be legalized?

8/3/2019 Rashed 202

7/16

Euthanasia should be legalized to insure legal rights, to alleviate suffering

and to provide more hospital care and beds for other patients. Someone

should have the right to die. People have the right to choose their own death

at their own time as an expression of free will. There should be laws

permitting this everywhere. Euthanasia is a very humane and very good way

to help people to end their lives. Nurses should have the right to end patients

life, but only if they request it. They are committed to compassion and

empathy and understand the basis of patient requests for assisted suicide.

The law of Euthanasia will bring all assisted suicide under closer scrutiny,

and be carried out by every hospital in the world. Many patients are

terminally ill and in great amount of pain. If euthanasia were legalized it

would prevent suffering. Acts of euthanasia are preformed to eliminate

suffering and allow the patient to die with dignity. The loved ones of the

person dying should have some say in the persons future too. The loved

ones are the people who see the person suffer the most and if the person andtheir loved ones both decide they should have a right to carry it out. It is an

act of love to stop this suffering. Doctors feel that euthanasia is sometimes

very necessary to relieve the patients of all there suffering. The doctors and

nurses at the hospital also have to see the patient suffer day after day and if

the person wants it and the doctor feels its right, it should be done. Out of

852 nurses surveyed sixteen percent were said to have preformed euthanasia

or help terminally ill patients commit suicide. Euthanasia should be

legalized because it would help many sick and dying patients end their lives

peacefully. If euthanasia were legalized it would provide more care and

hospital beds for many patients. 3,000 patients die each year after

specifically requesting that their lives be terminated. By legalizing

euthanasia more patients would choose it to help them deal with their pain

and there would begin to be less and less hospital overcrowding. It would

also provide more care for patients. Usually patients who request euthanasia

are the ones who need the most 24 hours hospital care and if these patients

want to end there life they should be able to, because it would provide more

care to other people. Also, hospitals spend tremendous amounts of money

each year on terminally ill patients. Money spent on hopeless intensive care

treatment could be used better toward a package of benefits for all those inthe Medicaid programs well as for other social good. To insure legal rights,

to alleviate suffering and to provide more hospital beds and care, euthanasia

should be legalized. Many people choose to die each year. If this is what that

is how they choose to end there lives, it should be carried out. Freedom of

choice is a basic right to all people, yet today people are unable to choose to

have their unendurable life terminated. The choice to continue to live in pain

8/3/2019 Rashed 202

8/16

or to die and end the suffering will be available with the legalizing of

euthanasia.

Doctors and Euthanasia

A doctor's role would be limited to writing out a prescription or providing an

oral barbiturate for a patient to self administers and die a peaceful death.

Such help would be restricted to patients who are terminally ill with six

months or less to live; suffering from unbearable pain; who are mentally

competent; and have made persistent and well-informed requests to die. The

bill includes 20 safeguards to protect vulnerable people, including an

assessment by two independent doctors as well as consultation with apalliative care expert to explore alternatives. Doctors opposed to the right to

die would be allowed to opt out of helping terminally ill patients end their

lives. The medical profession is split on the issue. Traditionally doctors have

been vocal opponents of assisted suicide, but last year many associations

dropped its opposition and switched to a neutral stance on assisted dying,

while maintaining its rejection of euthanasia. Others has swung the other

way, and exchanged its previous position of neutrality for outright

opposition following a survey of members. In any case, evidence suggests

that doctors are already helping thousands of patients to die. Extrapolating

from a poll of 870 doctors, suggested doctors in the UK were responsible for3,000 deaths through euthanasia last year. In addition, more than 170,000

patients, almost a third of all deaths, had treatment withdrawn or withheld

which hastened their demise. Some doctors do risk prosecution by helping

their patients to die. More controversially, only a small proportion of deaths

were attributable to voluntary euthanasia, where patients made a request of

their doctor. In a further 1,930 cases doctors said they ended life "without an

explicit request from the patient", which some call "non-voluntary

euthanasia. Some of these doctors are acting compassionately on their

patients' wishes, but some clearly act without consent cannot be safe.

Ethical Issue

The specificity of my case study meant that my research is limited, but my

concern was from the beginning to provide detailed discussion in order to

8/3/2019 Rashed 202

9/16

facilitate the future research. The study can be used for further studies to test

the hypothesis raised by the research to confirm or contradict the findings or

to build future research of similar interest.

Evaluation and Conclusion

We need to recognize that requests for voluntary euthanasia are extremely

rare in situations where the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of

terminally ill patients are properly met. As the symptoms which prompt the

request for euthanasia can be almost always managed with therapies

currently available, our highest priority must be to ensure that top quality

terminal care is readily available. While recognizing the importance of

individual patient autonomy, history has clearly demonstrated that legalizedeuthanasia poses serious risks to society as a whole. Patients can be coerced

and exploited, the search for better therapies is compromised and

involuntary euthanasia inevitably follows. Legislation allowing voluntary

euthanasia should be firmly resisted on the grounds that it sidesteps true

compassionate care and ultimately undermines rather than protects patient

autonomy.

I can understand at the individual level that in some cases you wish it was all

over with, but the problem is as a society you have to choose what's going to

be your norm. We have this idea that what happens to me is nobody's

business. The problem with euthanasia is it requires another person to do it,

and it requires a complicit society to authorize it. People will still differ in

their opinions toward euthanasia, I said that we all must die one day, and

most people hope for a quick and painless death. But sometimes life isn't so

easy. Some people suffer unbelievable pain from cancer or other diseases.

Others may lie in a permanently unconscious state due to an accident or

some other cause. Euthanasia is the practice of kindly and painlessly putting

a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or extreme oldness

to a supposedly peaceful death.

In conclusion then, euthanasia is a complex issue. There are many problems

and conclusions towards legalizing euthanasia. It would give people greater

autonomy over their own lives and give terminally-ill people a chance to

avoid great pain and emotional distress. However, it begins the degradation

8/3/2019 Rashed 202

10/16

of the prohibition of murder, and opens up the possibility of further erosion

of the system. The death of a person affects the lives of others, often in ways

and to an extent which cannot be foreseen. We believe that the issue of

euthanasia is one in which the interest of the individual cannot be separated

from the interest of society as a whole. Personally, I agree with legalization

and acceptance of euthanasia for it would benefit humanity and would be a

turn for the better. In reality, euthanasia provides a way for humans in

unbearable and incurable situations to be relieved of their afflictions.

Finally, all what can I say for all who are against. Let them die in peace.

Findings

World: Morale - Euthanasia

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/world-morale-euthanasia/http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/world-morale-euthanasia/

8/3/2019 Rashed 202

11/16

Justifiable: Euthanasia

The answer in the scale form was given, running from 1-10, 1 being never

justifiable and 10 being always justifiable. The mean score given from allthe participants in the respective country is shown in the graphs below:

1) Developed countries:

People in Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland,

Australia, France and Sweden scored more than 6 points out of 10 on the

issue of euthanasia: most of them agreed that euthanasia is justifiable. On

8/3/2019 Rashed 202

12/16

the other hand, people in Ireland, Mexico, Portugal, South Africa and

Hungary think the otherwise, thus their score is low, around 3.

2) Selected Asia countries:

Among the selected Asia countries, Japan is the only country scored such a

high point (agreeing towards that euthanasia is justifiable). Perhaps it was

due to the society aging pressure? On the other hand, Islamic countries like

Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia are strongly disagree that

euthanasia is justifiable. Their scores are less than 2.

Although it is not completely legalized in all countries it should offer some

defense against a prosecution.

8/3/2019 Rashed 202

13/16

This is the Living Will of me (Full Name) of (Address), (Town) in the County

of (County) made this day of (Date), two thousand and (Year).

I hereby revoke all former Living Wills made by me and declare this to be my

last Living Will.

In the event of my sustaining mental incapacity so that I am unable to express

my will, it is my final wish that my life should be ended without delay by any

painless means, irrespective of any law forbidding this.

As witness my hand the day and year first above written.

Testators signature

Signed by the said testator in the presence of us, present at the same time,who at his request and in his presence and in the presence of each other have

subscribed our names as witnesses?

Witness signature...

Witness name......

of (Address)

Witness signature...

Witness name......of (Address)

Prisoner of Conscience - Dr..

8/3/2019 Rashed 202

14/16

8/3/2019 Rashed 202

15/16

8/3/2019 Rashed 202

16/16

Bibliography

BBC Religion & Ethics: Euthanasia The Christian View

Whipp, M. (2000). Boundaries of Autonomy. InEuthanasia - a Good Death? , pp18-19. Cambridge: Grovebooks.

http://www.gopubmed.org/GoMeshPubMed/gomeshpubmed/TermStatistics/TermStatic_mesh_33101

Greenberg, S. I. (1997).Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Kaplan, K. J., ed. (2000).Right to Die Versus Sacredness ofLife. Amityville, NY: Baywood.

Scherer, J. M., and Simon, R. J. (1999).Euthanasia and the Right to Die. Lanham, MD: Rowman &

Littlefield.

Dutch doctors pushed on to 'slippery slope' over euthanasia. The Independent Wednesday 17 February

1993 p8.

Whipp, M. (2000).Euthanasia - a Good Death? Cambridge: Grove books.

Wilcockson, S.A. (1981).Last rights: Christian perspectives on euthanasia. Cambridge: Grove books.

Ogden, R. (1986). Discussion and Policy Implications; The difficulties of euthanasia. InEuthanasia,

Assisted Suicide and AIDS. New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada: Peroglyphics Publishing.

Rachels, J. (1986). The End of Life, Euthanasia and Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

(1997).Last Rights? Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Debated. (ed. M. Uhlmann). Washington D.C. :

William B.Eerdmans Publishing Company.

http://www.fratfiles.com/topics/history+of+euthanasia/0

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/sanctity_life/euthach.shtmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/sanctity_life/euthach.shtml