Unit.C.7.3.
Euthanasia/Mercy Killing Physician Assisted Suicide
Australia |
focus
points
|
 |
Insert forensic
focus points here
Canada |
focus
points
|
|
"People
against euthanasia worry that many patients would choose
death if assisted suicide were legalized, whether they feel
they are an emotional or an economic burden, or because
they have been given the message their life has no meaning"
(Cawsey, 1996, p. 22).
"Anti-euthanasia
activists fear the "slippery slope" - that changes
in the law with regard to competent people could lead to
changes in the law for incompetent people and that society
could decide someone mentally challenged or chronically
(but not terminally ill) has a "poor quality of life"
as well" (Cawsey, 1996, p. 22).
"While
no Western democracy has officially legalized euthanasia,
euthanasia is legal in practice in the Netherlands. Although
the Dutch Parliament never ratified a bill legalizing euthanasia,
in 1984 the Supreme Court ruled that if the guidelines established
by the Royal Dutch Medical Association were followed, doctors
would be free from charges of criminal liability if they
practiced euthanasia" (Cawsey, 1996, p. 23).
"According
to a new law passed in the Netherlands in 1994, euthanasia
remains illegal, but doctors can avoid prosecution by filling
out a questionnaire outlining the circumstances of the death.
The questionnaire states in its preamble: "death does
not have to be imminent, nor must the patient be terminally
ill. A person who is mentally ill is allowed to request
euthanasia" (Cawsey, 1996, p. 23-24).
"Mercy
killing is also allowed in the Netherlands without the person's
consent if the person is unable to communicate" (Cawsey,
1996, p. 23-24).
"With a
voluntary reporting system in the Netherlands, doctors are
rarely prosecuted. Physicians only report those cases where
it is clear the guidelines have been followed" (Cawsey,
1996, p. 23-24).
"Legislation
of euthanasia could result in abuses especially with respect
to the most vulnerable members in society. The Netherlands
experience indicates that guidelines are not always followed
A society cannot adopt a policy permitting assisted suicide
without initiating a process that may be difficult to control
(Report of the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and
Assisted Suicide" (Cawsey, 1996, p. 23-24).
"Section
241 of the Criminal Code of Canada - Everyone who (a) counsels
a person to commit suicide, or (b) aids or abets a person
to commit suicide, whether suicide ensue or is not guilty
of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for
a term not exceeding 14 years" (Robinson, 1994, p.
35).
"In 1992
(Nov.) Sue Rodriguez appeared in a video asking the House
of Commons Committee to eliminate Section 241 of the Criminal
Code arguing that it was unconstitutional. The law was upheld
ruling that the Criminal Code protects "the young,
the innocent, the mentally incompetent and the depressed".
Ms Rodriguez appealed the court ruling but it was again
defeated in March 1993" (Robinson, Alberta Report,
1994, p. 36).
International |
focus
points
|
|
Insert forensic
focus points here
United Kingdom |
focus
points
|
|
"As an ethical
matter, withdrawing treatment is no more problematic than
withholding - not initiating treatment. One might argue
that it is ethically preferable to try various options and,
only if they prove to be ineffective, discontinue them.
But such a course may raise legal questions. In contrast,
the legal system is usually not drawn into decisions against
initiating treatment" (Klotzko, 1996, p. 42).
"Issues
involving end of death-decision making are becoming more
important and difficult as medical technology enables even
severely compromised adults and newborns to be kept alive"
(Klotzko, 1996, p. 42). "What
kinds of life are sufficient quality? Who decides? Should
such questions be answered by physicians and parents behind
closed doors, or should there be public scrutiny through
the legal system? If we do involve the legal system, should
permissible actions include purposeful killing or be limited
to allowing nature to take its course?"(Klotzko, 1996,
p. 45).
"On the
continuum of medical decisions to end life, where should
the line be drawn? Should only withholding and withdrawing
treatment be allowed or is it more humane - and thus ethically
acceptable to end actively, quickly, and painlessly the
life of someone who is suffering" (Klotzko, 1996, p.
45).
"Somewhere
between withholding and withdrawing treatment and purposeful
termination of life is a category of behavior that is governed
by the principle of double effect: a physician may administer
opiates to relive pain and thereby hasten death. The first
effect is intended, while the second is merely a by-product
of the first. Thus there is no moral or legal culpability
for the death" (Klotzko, 1996, p. 45).
United States |
focus
points
|
|
Throughout North America, committing suicide or attempting to commit suicide is not a legal offense. However, helping another person commit suicide is a criminal act. One exception is the state of Oregon which allows people who are terminally ill and in intractable pain to get a lethal prescription from their physician. This is called "Physician Assisted Suicide" or PASm (Robinson, 1999).
Focus Points
Reference
Cawsey, K. (1996).
Euthanasia: A Christian physician responds to the challenge.
Presbyterian Record, 21-24.
Klotzko, A.
(1996). Deepening dilemma. Nursing Times, 92 (15),
42-45.
Robinson, B.
(1999). Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide: All
sides of the issue. Retrieved June 17, 2002 from http://www.religioustolerance.org/euthanas.htm#term
Robinson, S.
(February 28, 1994). The right to kill debate begins in
earnest. Alberta Report, 35- 36.
Seitz, T. (2000).
The euthanasia debate. The Canadian Nurse, 96 (3),
43-44.
Top
of Page
Topic
C - Forensic Nursing > Section C.7.0. Forensic Issues > Unit.C.7.3.
Euthanasia/Mercy Killing Physician Assisted Suicide
