Legality of euthanasia: Difference between revisions
linked to Federal Court of Justice of Germany instead; added {{seealso|Assisted suicide in the United States}} to US section |
→The Netherlands: added sourced paragraph on the 1973 "Postma case" and its significance in the history of euthanasia in the Netherlands |
||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
=== The Netherlands === |
=== The Netherlands === |
||
{{main|Euthanasia in the Netherlands}} |
{{main|Euthanasia in the Netherlands}} |
||
| ⚫ | In 2002, |
||
In the 1973 "Postma case" a physician was convicted for having facilitated the death of her mother following repeated explicit requests for euthanasia.<ref name="pmid19718271">{{cite journal |author=Rietjens JA, van der Maas PJ, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, van Delden JJ, van der Heide A |title=Two Decades of Research on Euthanasia from the Netherlands. What Have We Learnt and What Questions Remain? |journal=J Bioeth Inq |volume=6 |issue=3 |pages=271–283 |year=2009 |month=September |pmid=19718271 |pmc=2733179 |doi=10.1007/s11673-009-9172-3}}</ref> While upholding the conviction, the court set out critera when a doctor was not required to keep a patient alive contrary to their will. This set of critera was formalized during the 1980s. |
|||
| ⚫ | In 2002, the [[Netherlands]] passed a law legalizing euthanasia including physician assisted suicide.<ref name="pmid19718271"/> This law codifies the twenty year old convention of not prosecuting doctors who have committed euthanasia in very specific cases, under very specific circumstances. The [[Ministry of Public Health, Wellbeing and Sports]] claims that this practice "allows a person to end their life in dignity after having received every available type of palliative care."<ref>[http://www.minvws.nl/en/themes/euthanasia/default.asp discussion of euthanasia] on the [http://www.minvws.nl site] of the [[Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (Netherlands)|Dutch ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport]]</ref> |
||
The United Nations has reviewed and commented on the Netherlands euthanasia law.<ref>[http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/385c2add1632f4a8c12565a9004dc311/dbab71d01e02db11c1256a950041d732?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,euthanasia Observations of the UN human rights committee]</ref> |
The United Nations has reviewed and commented on the Netherlands euthanasia law.<ref>[http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/385c2add1632f4a8c12565a9004dc311/dbab71d01e02db11c1256a950041d732?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,euthanasia Observations of the UN human rights committee]</ref> |
||
Revision as of 18:41, 8 February 2011
| Part of a series on |
| Euthanasia |
|---|
| Types |
| Views |
| Groups |
| People |
| Books |
| Jurisdictions |
| Laws |
| Alternatives |
| Other issues |
Efforts to change government policies on euthanasia in the 20th century have met limited success in Western countries. Euthanasia policies have also been developed by a variety of NGOs, most notably medical associations and advocacy organizations.
Euthanasia law by country
Albania
Euthanasia was legalized in Albania in 1999, it was stated that any form of voluntary euthanasia was legal under the rights of the terminally ill act of 1995. Passive euthanasia is considered legal should three or more family members consent to the decision. Albania's euthanasia policy has been controversial among life groups and the Catholic Church.
Resources: Bardhyl Çipi, Department of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tirana University. Some philosophical, juridical and bioethical problems of end of life: death criterion and euthanasia. A paper analyzing the situation in Albania. From The third international symposium on bioethics, Ukraine, Kiev, April 2004.
Belgium
The Belgian parliament legalized euthanasia in late September 2002. Proponents of euthanasia state that prior to the law, several thousand illegal acts of euthanasia were carried out in Belgium each year of course. According to proponents, the legislation incorporated a complicated process, which has been criticized as an attempt to establish a "bureaucracy of death".
Canada
Canadian laws on living wills and passive euthanasia are a legal dilemma. Documents which set out guidelines for dealing with life-sustaining medical procedures are under the Provinces control, in Ontario under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996.[1]
Czech Republic
Voluntary euthanasia as well as assisted suicide are illegal in Czech Republic and considered as murder.
Germany
On 25 June 2010, the Federal Court of Justice of Germany legalised passive euthanasia with patient consent.[2]
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.[3]
Ireland
In Ireland, it is illegal for a doctor (or anyone) to actively contribute to someone's death. It is not, however, illegal to remove life support and other treatment (the "right to die") should a person (or their next of kin) request it - in other words, passive euthanasia is legal. A September 2010 Irish Times poll showed that a majority, 57% of adults, believed that doctor-assisted suicide should be legal for terminally ill patients who request it.[4]
Japan
The Japanese government has official laws on the status of euthanasia and the Supreme Court of Japan has ruled on the matter. Now, euthanasia is illegal in Japan. Rather, to date, Japan's euthanasia policy has been decided by two local court cases, one in Nagoya in 1962, and another after an incident at Tokai University in 1995. The first case involved "passive euthanasia" (消極的安楽死, shōkyokuteki anrakushi) (i.e., allowing a patient to die by turning off life support) and the latter case involved "active euthanasia" (積極的安楽死, sekkyokuteki anrakushi) (e.g., through injection). The judgments in these cases set forth a legal framework and a set of conditions within which both passive and active euthanasia could be legal. Nevertheless, in both of these particular cases the doctors were found guilty of violating these conditions when taking the lives of their patients. Further, because the findings of these courts have yet to be upheld at the national level, these precedents are not necessarily binding. Nevertheless, at present, there is a tentative legal framework for implementing euthanasia in Japan.[5]
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.
Luxembourg
The country's parliament passed a bill legalizing euthanasia on 20 February 2008 in the first reading with 30 of 59 votes in favour. On 19 March 2009, the bill passed the second reading, making Luxembourg the third European Union country, after the Netherlands and Belgium, to decriminalise euthanasia. Terminally ill people will be able to have their lives ended after receiving the approval of two doctors and a panel of experts (Err/Huss law in French [6])
Mexico
In Mexico, active euthanasia is illegal but since 7 January 2008 the law allows the terminally ill —or closest relatives, if unconscious— to refuse medication or further medical treatment to extend life (also known as passive euthanasia) in Mexico City,[7] in the central state of Aguascalientes (since 6 April 2009)[8] and, since 1 September 2009, in the Western state of Michoacán.[9] A similar law extending the same provisions at the national level has been approved by the senate[10] and an initiative decriminalizing active euthanasia has entered the same legislative chamber on 13 April 2007.[11]
The Netherlands
In the 1973 "Postma case" a physician was convicted for having facilitated the death of her mother following repeated explicit requests for euthanasia.[12] While upholding the conviction, the court set out critera when a doctor was not required to keep a patient alive contrary to their will. This set of critera was formalized during the 1980s.
In 2002, the Netherlands passed a law legalizing euthanasia including physician assisted suicide.[12] This law codifies the twenty year old convention of not prosecuting doctors who have committed euthanasia in very specific cases, under very specific circumstances. The Ministry of Public Health, Wellbeing and Sports claims that this practice "allows a person to end their life in dignity after having received every available type of palliative care."[13]
The United Nations has reviewed and commented on the Netherlands euthanasia law.[14]
New Zealand
Two attempts have been made in the Parliament passing Bills to legalize it, but euthanasia remains illegal in New Zealand
Norway
Euthanasia remains illegal, though a caregiver may receive a reduced punishment for taking the life of someone who consents to it, or for, out of compassion, taking the life of a person that is "hopelessly sick". [15]
The second largest political party, the Progress Party, have several times tried to legalize euthanasia.
Switzerland
In Switzerland, deadly drugs may be prescribed to a Swiss person or to a foreigner, where the recipient takes an active role in the drug administration.[16] More generally, article 115 of the Swiss penal code, which came into effect in 1942 (having been written in 1918), considers assisting suicide a crime if and only if the motive is selfish.
United Kingdom
Euthanasia is illegal in the United Kingdom. Any person found to be assisting suicide is breaking the law and can be convicted of assisting suicide or attempting to do so (e.g. if a doctor gives a patient in great pain a bottle of morphine to take (to commit suicide) when the pain gets too great).[17][18] Although two-thirds of Britons think it should be legal,[citation needed] in 2004 the 'Assisted Dying for the Terminally-Ill Bill' was rejected in the lower political chamber, the House of Commons, by a 4-1 margin. Currently, Dr Nigel Cox is the only British doctor to have been convicted of attempted euthanasia. He was given a 12 month suspended sentence in 1992.[19] The principle of double effect is however firmly established. In 1957 Judge Devlin in the trial of Dr John Bodkin Adams ruled that causing death through the administration of lethal drugs to a patient, if the intention is solely to alleviate pain, is not considered murder even if death is a potential or even likely outcome.[20]
United States
Active euthanasia is illegal in most of the United States. Patients retain the rights to refuse medical treatment and to receive appropriate management of pain at their request (passive euthanasia), even if the patients' choices hasten their deaths. Additionally, futile or disproportionately burdensome treatments, such as life-support machines, may be withdrawn under specified circumstances.
Non-governmental organizations
There are a number of historical studies about the thorough euthanasia-related policies of professional associations. In the Academy of Neurology (AAN).[21] In their analysis, Brody et al. found it necessary to distinguish such topics as euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, informed consent and refusal, advance directives, pregnant patients, surrogate decision-making (including neonates), DNR orders, irreversible loss of consciousness, quality of life (as a criterion for limiting end-of-life care), withholding and withdrawing intervention, and futility. Similar distinctions presumably are found outside the U.S., as with the highly contested statements of the British Medical Association.[22][23]
On euthanasia (narrowly-defined here as directly causing death), Brody sums up the U.S. medical NGO arena:
The debate in the ethics literature on euthanasia is just as divided as the debate on physician-assisted suicide, perhaps more so. Slippery-slope arguments are often made, supported by claims about abuse of voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands.... Arguments against it are based on the integrity of medicine as a profession. In response, autonomy and quality-of-life-base arguments are made in support of euthanasia, underscored by claims that when the only way to relieve a dying patient's pain or suffering is terminal sedation with loss of consciousness, death is a preferable alternative -- an argument also made in support of physician-assisted suicide.[24]
Other NGOs that advocate for and against various euthanasia-related policies are found throughout the world. Among proponents, perhaps the leading NGO is the UK's Dignity in Dying, the successor to the (Voluntary) Euthanasia Society.[25] In addition to professional and religious groups, there are NGOs opposed to euthanasia[26] found in various countries.
References
- ^ http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_96h02_e.htm
- ^ "German court legalises euthanasia with patient consent" news.bbc.co.uk 25 June 2010 Link retrieved 25 June 2010
- ^ Indian Law Commission to recommend euthanasia to Government
- ^ The Irish Times (17 September 2010) - Majority believe assisted suicide should be legal
- ^ "安楽死". 現代用語の基礎知識. 自由国民社. 2007. pp. 951, 953.
- ^ Proposition de Loi sur le droit de mourir en dignité
- ^ "Publica GDF Ley de Voluntad Anticipada". ElUniversal (in Spanish). Mexico City. Notimex. 2008-01-07. Retrieved 2009-09-25.
- ^ Rodríguez, Susana (2009-04-08). "Sólo falta reglamentar la voluntad anticipada para aplicarla: Ruvalcaba". La Jornada Aguascalientes (in Spanish). Retrieved 2009-09-26.
{{cite news}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ "Michoacán aprueba Ley de Voluntad Anticipada". El Economista (in Spanish). Morelia, Mexico. Notimex. 2009-09-01. Retrieved 2009-09-25.
- ^ "Senado México aprueba a enfermos terminales rehusar tratamientos". EcoDiario (in Spanish). Mexico. Reuters. 2008-11-26. Retrieved 2009-09-25.
- ^ "Mexico moves to legalise euthanasia". Mexico City. Reuters. 2007-04-13. Retrieved 2009-09-25.
- ^ a b Rietjens JA, van der Maas PJ, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, van Delden JJ, van der Heide A (2009). "Two Decades of Research on Euthanasia from the Netherlands. What Have We Learnt and What Questions Remain?". J Bioeth Inq. 6 (3): 271–283. doi:10.1007/s11673-009-9172-3. PMC 2733179. PMID 19718271.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ discussion of euthanasia on the site of the Dutch ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport
- ^ Observations of the UN human rights committee
- ^ "Straffeloven". Criminal Law. 1902-05-22. Retrieved 2010-08-15.
- ^ Lundin, Leigh (2009-08-02). "YOUthanasia". Criminal Brief. Retrieved 2009-08-27.
- ^ Suicide Act 1961 s.2
- ^ Smartt, Ursula (2009). "Euthanasia and the Law". Criminal Law & Justice Weekly. 173 (7): 100.
- ^ Nigel Cox conviction
- ^ Margaret Otlowski, Voluntary Euthanasia and the Common Law, Oxford University Press, 1997, pp. 175-177
- ^ Brody, Baruch, McCullough, Rothstein and Bobinski. Medical Ethics: Analysis of the issues raised by the Codes, Opinions and Statements
- ^ On the BMA controversy.
- ^ For professional policies in the English-speaking world, see this selection by an advocacy NGO.
- ^ Brody et al., p.283
- ^ Dignity in Dying. In an unsympathetic account, the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide has detailed the ebb and flow of euthanasia proponents. http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/rpt2005_I.htm#204
- ^ Euthanasia suicide mercy-killing right-to-die physician assisted suicide living wills research
External links
- Focarelli, Carlo. Euthanasia, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law