Assisted suicide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Physician-assisted suicide)
Jump to: navigation, search

Assisted suicide is suicide committed with the aid of another person, sometimes a physician.[1] The term is often used interchangeably with physician-assisted suicide (PAS), which involves a doctor "knowingly and intentionally providing a person with the knowledge or means or both required to commit suicide, including counseling about lethal doses of drugs, prescribing such lethal doses or supplying the drugs.”[2]

Physician-assisted suicide is often confused with euthanasia (sometimes called "mercy killing"). In cases of euthanasia the physician administers the means of death, usually a lethal drug. Voluntary euthanasia occurs at the request of the patient. Involuntary euthanasia and non-voluntary euthanasia occur without the request or consent of the patient. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is always at the request and with the consent of the patient, since he or she self-administers the means of death.

Discussion of assisted suicide centers on legal, social, ethical and religious issues related to suicide and murder.

Reasons for seeking[edit]

In a study of 35 cases, the most important reasons for requesting assisted suicide, among patients who received prescriptions for lethal medications, were a desire to control the circumstances of death, a desire to die at home, the belief that continuing to live was pointless, and feeling ready to die. Depression and other psychiatric disorders, lack of social support, and concern about being a financial drain were, according to nurses, relatively unimportant.[3]

Legality[edit]

Euthanasia is legal in Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg and the Netherlands and Luxembourg legislation also makes provision for assisted suicide. Assisted suicide where the patient has to take the final action themselves (unlike euthanasia) is legal in Switzerland. There are assisted dying laws, for terminally ill mentally competent adults only, in the US states of Oregon, Washington and Vermont.

Legality by country[edit]

Australia[edit]

Assisted suicide is currently illegal throughout Australia, but was for a time legal in the Northern Territory under the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995.

Belgium[edit]

The "Euthanasia Act" legalized euthanasia in Belgium in 2002,[4][5] but it didn't cover assisted suicide.[6]

In 2006, Belgium legalized partial euthanasia with certain regulations:

  • The patient must be an adult and in a "futile medical condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated"[7]
  • The patient must have a long-term history with the doctor, with euthanasia/physician assisted suicide only allowed for permanent residents
  • There need to be several requests that are reviewed by a commission and approved by two doctors.[8]

Canada[edit]

Main article: Euthanasia in Canada

Suicide is not a crime in Canada, but physician-assisted suicide is considered illegal.[9]

The Criminal Code of Canada states in section 241(b) that

Every one who ….(b) aids or abets a person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years"[10]

The reason behind its illegality owes to preventing people from 'assisting in suicide' those that are not mentally capable of making the decision and because of the "value that society places on human life" which "in the eyes of the law makers, might easily be eroded if assistance in committing suicide were to be decriminalized."[10]

In 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada heard a case (Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General)) in which Sue Rodriguez, a terminally ill woman, challenged the prohibition of assisted suicide as contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In a 5 to 4 decision, the Court upheld the provision in the Criminal Code of Canada.

On June 15, 2012, the British Columbia Supreme Court struck down the prohibition against physician-assisted suicide, calling the current law discriminatory, disproportionate and overbroad. Justice Lynn Smith suspended her ruling for a period of one year in order to give Parliament time to draft legislation with her ruling in mind.[11] Within a month, the federal government announced it would appeal that ruling.[12] On October 25, 2012, the federal government filed its 54-page legal argument, arguing inter alia that the purpose of the current legislation is "to protect the vulnerable, who might be induced in moments of weakness to commit suicide", that "it is a reflection of the state’s policy that the inherent value of all human life should not be depreciated by allowing one person to take another’s life", and that the B.C. Supreme Court had no right to attempt to overrule the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in the 1993 Rodriguez case.[13] On December 10, 2012, the British Columbia Court of Appeal announced that it had scheduled a hearing for the appeal in March, 2013.[14] Suicide was considered a criminal offence in Canada until 1972, after which it was removed from the Criminal Code. In 2014, doctor-assisted suicide, or euthanasia, became legal in the province of Quebec. [15]

China[edit]

An article in People's Daily reported that "Nine people from Xi'an City in China made news when they 'jointly wrote to local media asking for euthanasia, or mercy killings'".[16] These people had uremia, a disease due to the failure of the kidneys, and expressed their "unbearable suffering and [an unwillingness] to burden their families any more".[17] The article stated because it is illegal for doctors to help their patients die, all that could be done for them was to ask the doctors to ease their pain.[16]

Colombia[edit]

Despite its strict Roman Catholic history, in May 1997 Colombian courts allowed for the euthanasia of sick patients who requested to end their lives.[8] This ruling came about owing to the efforts of a group that strongly opposed euthanasia. When one of its members brought a lawsuit to the Colombian Supreme Court against it, the court issued a 6 to 3 decision that "spelled out the rights of a terminally ill person to engage in voluntary euthanasia."[18]

Though physician-assisted suicide is legal, the country has no way to document or set rules and regulations for doctors and patients that want to end their lives. Though it is opposed on religious grounds by many Colombians, many patients have still been able to find doctors to assist them in ending their lives.[8]

Denmark[edit]

Denmark has no laws permitting assisted suicide.[19] Assisted suicide is illegal and punishable as manslaughter by up to 3 years.[citation needed]

France[edit]

The controversy over legalising euthanasia and physician assisted suicide is not as big as in the United States because of the country's "well developed hospice care programme".[20] However, in 2000 the controversy over the uncontroversial topic was ignited with Vincent Humbert. After a car crash that left him "unable to 'walk, see, speak, smell or taste'", he used the movement of his right thumb to write a book, I Ask the Right to Die (Je vous demande le droit de mourir) in which he voiced his desire to "die legally".[20] After his appeal was denied, his mother assisted in killing him by injecting him with an overdose of barbiturates that put him into a coma, killing him 2 days later. Though his mother was arrested for aiding in her son's death and later acquitted, the case did jumpstart a new legislation which states that when medicine serves "no other purpose than the artificial support of life" it can be "suspended or not undertaken".[21]

In 2013 President Francois Hollande said that France should hold a national debate on the issue and stated his intention to introduce a bill to parliament before the end of the year. Opinion polls in France show that the majority of the public are in favour of an assisted suicide law,[22] however France's national ethics committee has advised against any change in the law.[23]

Germany[edit]

Killing somebody in accordance with his demands is always illegal under the German criminal code (Paragraph 216, "Killing at the request of the victim; mercy killing").[24]

Assisting with suicide by, for example, providing poison or a weapon, is generally legal. Since suicide itself is legal, assistance or encouragement is not punishable by the usual legal mechanisms dealing with complicity and incitement (German criminal law follows the idea of "accessories of complicity" which states that "the motives of a person who incites another person to commit suicide, or who assists in its commission, are irrelevant").[25] Nor is assisting with suicide explicitly outlawed by the criminal code. There can however be legal repercussions under certain conditions for a number of reasons. Aside from laws regulating firearms, the trade and handling of controlled substances and the like (e.g. when acquiring poison for the suicidal person), this concerns three points:

Free vs. manipulated will[edit]

If the suicidal person is not acting out of his own free will, then assistance is punishable by any of a number of homicide offences that the criminal code provides for, as having "acted through another person" (§25, section 1 of the German criminal code,[26] usually called "mittelbare Täterschaft"). Action out of free will is not ruled out by the decision to end one's life in itself; it can be assumed as long as a suicidal person "decides on his own fate up to the end […] and is in control of the situation."[25]

Free will cannot be assumed, however, if someone is manipulated or deceived. A classic textbook example for this, in German law, is the so-called Sirius case on which the Federal Court of Justice ruled in 1983: The accused had convinced an acquaintance that she would be re-incarnated into a better life if she killed herself. She unsuccessfully attempted suicide, leading the accused to be charged with, and eventually convicted of attempted murder.[27] (The accused had also convinced the acquaintance that he hailed from the star Sirius, hence the name of the case).

Apart from manipulation, the criminal code states three conditions under which a person is not acting under his own free will:

  1. if the person is under 14
  2. if the person has "one of the mental diseases listed in §20 of the German Criminal Code"[28]
  3. a person that is acting under a state of emergency.

Under these circumstances, even if colloquially speaking one might say a person is acting of his own free will, a conviction of murder is possible.

Neglected duty to rescue[edit]

German criminal law obliges everybody to come to the rescue of others in an emergency, within certain limits (§323c of the German criminal code, "Omission to effect an easy rescue").[29] This is also known as a duty to rescue in English. Under this rule, the party assisting in the suicide can be convicted if, in finding the suicidal person in a state of unconsciousness, he does not do everything in his power to revive him.[30] In other words, if someone assists a person in committing suicide, leaves, but comes back and finds the person unconscious, he must try to revive him.[31]

This reasoning is disputed by legal scholars, citing that a life-threatening condition that is part, so to speak, of a suicide underway, is not an emergency. For those who would rely on that defence, the Federal Court of Justice has considered it an emergency in the past.

Homicide by omission[edit]

German law puts certain people in the position of a warrantor (Garantenstellung) for the well-being of another, e.g. parents, spouses, doctors and police officers. Such people might find themselves legally bound to do what they can to prevent a suicide; if they do not, they are guilty of homicide by omission.

Iceland[edit]

Assisted suicide is illegal. “At the current time, there are no initiatives in Iceland that seek the legalization of euthanasia or assisted suicide. The discussion on euthanasia has never received any interest in Iceland, and both lay people and health care professionals seem to have little interest in the topic. A few articles have appeared in newspapers but gained little attention.”[32]

Luxembourg[edit]

After failing to get royal assent for legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide, in December 2008 Luxembourg's parliament amended the country's constitution to take this power away from the monarch, the Grand Duke of Luxembourg.[33] Euthanasia and assisted suicide were legalized in the country in April, 2009.[34]

The Netherlands[edit]

Physician-assisted suicide is legal under the same conditions as euthanasia.

New Zealand[edit]

Assisted suicide is illegal in New Zealand. Under Section 179 of the Crimes Act 1961, it is illegal to 'aid and abet suicide.'

South Africa[edit]

South Africa is struggling with the debate over legalizing euthanasia. Owing to the under-developed health care system that pervades the majority of the country, Willem Landman, "a member of the South African Law Commission, at a symposium on euthanasia at the World Congress of Family Doctors" stated that many South African doctors would be willing to perform acts of euthanasia when it became legalized in the country.[35] He feels that because of the lack of doctors in the country, "[legalizing] euthanasia in South Africa would be premature and difficult to put into practice […]".[35]

Switzerland[edit]

Though it is illegal to assist a patient in dying in some circumstances, there are others where there is no offence committed.[36] The relevant provision of the Swiss Criminal Code[37] refers to "a person who, for selfish reasons, incites someone to commit suicide or who assists that person in doing so will, if the suicide was carried out or attempted, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment (Zuchthaus) of up to 5 years or a term of imprisonment (Gefängnis)."

A person brought to court on a charge could presumably avoid conviction by proving that they were "motivated by the good intentions of bringing about a requested death for the purposes of relieving "suffering" rather than for "selfish" reasons.[38] In order to avoid conviction, the person has to prove that the deceased knew what he or she was doing, had capacity to make the decision, and had made an "earnest" request, meaning he/she asked for death several times. The person helping also has to avoid actually doing the act that leads to death, lest they be convicted under Article 114: Killing on request (Tötung auf Verlangen) - A person who, for decent reasons, especially compassion, kills a person on the basis of his or her serious and insistent request, will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment (Gefängnis). For instance, it should be the suicide subject who actually presses the syringe or takes the pill, after the helper had prepared the setup.[39] This way the country can criminalise certain controversial acts, which many of its people would oppose, while legalising a narrow range of assistive acts for some of those seeking help to end their lives.

In July 2009, British conductor Sir Edward Downes and his wife Joan died together at a suicide clinic outside Zürich "under circumstances of their own choosing". Sir Edward was not terminally ill, but his wife was diagnosed with rapidly developing cancer.[40]

In March 2010, the PBS FRONTLINE TV program in the United States showed a documentary called "The Suicide Tourist" which told the story of Professor Craig Ewert, his family, and Dignitas, and their decision to commit assisted suicide using Sodium Pentobarbital in Switzerland after he was diagnosed and suffering with ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease).[41]

In May 2011, Zurich held a referendum that asked voters whether (i) assisted suicide should be prohibited outright; and (ii) whether Dignitas and other assisted suicide providers should not admit overseas users. Zurich voters heavily rejected both bans, despite anti-euthanasia lobbying from two Swiss social conservative political parties, the Evangelical People's Party of Switzerland and Federal Democratic Union. The outright ban proposal was rejected by eighty four percent of voters, while seventy eight percent voted to keep services open should overseas users require them.[42]

In June 2011, The BBC televised the assisted suicide of Peter Smedley, a canning factory owner, who was suffering from motor neurone disease. The programme - Sir Terry Pratchett's Choosing To Die - told the story of Peter's journey to the end where he used The Dignitas Clinic, a euthanasia clinic in Switzerland, to assist him in carrying out the taking of his own life. The programme shows Peter eating chocolates to counter the unpalatable taste of the liquid he drinks to end his own life. Moments after drinking the liquid, Peter begged for water, gasped for breath and became red,[43] he then fell into a deep sleep where he snored heavily while holding his wife's hand. Minutes later, Peter stopped breathing and his heart stopped beating.

United Kingdom[edit]

Assisted suicide is illegal in the United Kingdom.[44] Between 2003 and 2006 Lord Joffe made four attempts to introduce bills that would have legalised assisted suicide in England & Wales - all were rejected by the UK Parliament.[45] In the meantime the Director of Public Prosecutions has clarified the criteria under which an individual will be prosecuted in England & Wales for assisting in another person's suicide.[46] These have not been tested by an appellate court as yet[47] Independent MSP Margo MacDonald's "End of Life Assistance Bill" was brought before the Scottish Parliament to permit assisted suicide in January 2010. The Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland, the largest denomination in Scotland, opposed the bill. The bill was rejected by a vote of 85-16 (with 2 abstentions) in December 2010.[48][49]

In 2013 Lord Falconer of Thoroton tabled an Assisted Dying Bill, seven years after the last attempt to legalise assisted dying in Westminster. A YouGov poll found that 75% of the British public agreed with the proposals of the Bill, which will be debated in 2014.[50]

United States[edit]

U.S. states where physician-assisted suicide is legal

Assisted suicide is legal in the American states of Oregon (via the Oregon Death with Dignity Act),[51] Washington (Washington Death with Dignity Act), Vermont (Patient Choice and Control at End of Life Act), and New Mexico. In Montana (through the 2009 trial court ruling Baxter v. Montana), the court found no public policy against assisting suicide, so consent may be raised as a defense at trial. Oregon and Washington specify some restrictions.

For instance, Oregon requires a physician to prescribe medication but it must be self-administered. For the patient to be eligible, the patient must be diagnosed by the attending physician as well as a consulting physician with a terminal illness that will cause the death of the individual within 6 months.The patient must be at least 18 years of age, a resident of Oregon and be deemed capable of making their own decisions. It is required the patient orally request at least twice and contribute a written request. The physician must notify the patient of alternatives; such as palliative care, hospice and pain management. Lastly the physician is to request but not require the patient to notify their next of kin that they are requesting a prescription for a lethal dose of medication. Assuming all guidelines are met and the patient is deemed competent and completely sure they wish to end their life, the physician will give the patient the lethal dose prescription to self-administer.[52]

Since the Oregon Death with Dignity Act was passed in 1994, a total of 1,050 people have had DWDA prescriptions written and 673 patients have died from ingesting medications prescribed under the DWDA.[53] Oregon Health Authority. Oregon Public Health Division, 14 Jan 2013. Web. 4 Dec 2013.[54]

Washington's rules and restrictions are similar, if not exactly the same, as Oregon's. Not only does the patient have to meet the above criteria, they also have to be examined by not one, but two doctors licensed in their state of residence. Both doctors must come to the same conclusion about the patient's prognosis. If one doctor does not see the patient fit for the prescription, then the patient must undergo psychological inspection to tell whether or not the patient is in fact capable and mentally fit to make the decision of assisted suicide or not.[53]

In May 2013, Vermont became the fourth state in the union to legalize assisted suicide. Vermont’s House of Representatives voted 75-65 to approve the bill, Patient Choice and Control at End of Life Act. This bill states that the qualifying patient must be at least 18, a Vermont resident and suffering from an incurable and irreversible disease, with less than six months to live. Also, two physicians, including the prescribing doctor must make the medical determination.[55]

In January 2014, New Mexico inched closer to being the fifth state in the USA to legalize assisted suicide via a court ruling.[56] “This court cannot envision a right more fundamental, more private or more integral to the liberty, safety and happiness of a New Mexican than the right of a competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying,” wrote Judge Nan G. Nash of the Second District Court in Albuquerque. The NM attorney general’s office said it was studying the decision and whether to appeal to the State Supreme Court.

Organizations in support of assisted suicide[edit]

Listed below are some major organizations that support assisted suicide:

Compassion & Choices[edit]

Compassion & Choices is a non-profit organization that supports, advocates, and educates people about health care options that can expand choice at the end of life. The organization was formed via the merging of Compassion in Dying and End-of-Life Choices organization (formerly known as the Hemlock Society).[citation needed]

Death with Dignity National Center[edit]

The Death with Dignity National Center is a nonprofit organization that has been in existence since 1993. This organization is most notably associated with the original writing and continued advocating of the Oregon Death with Dignity Law that was enacted on October 27, 1997.[57][third-party source needed]

Dignitas (Switzerland)[edit]

Dignitas helps Swiss nationals and foreigners to commit suicide by providing advice and lethal drugs. The legal pre-requisites are that a person must have either a terminal illness, an unendurable incapacitating disability or unbearable and uncontrollable pain. [58] However, in practice they also accept mentally ill patients [59] or those without a medical diagnosis, for example the retired British art teacher who killed herself on 27 March 2014 “in part because she had become fed up with the modern world of emails, TVs, computers and supermarket ready meals.” [60]

Dignity in Dying[edit]

Dignity in Dying is a voluntary organization located in London.[61][third-party source needed]

Disabled Activists for Dignity in Dying[edit]

DADID is a campaign group in the UK for disabled people in association with Dignity in Dying, led by disabled people who support a change in the law to allow terminally ill, mentally competent adults the choice of an assisted death within upfront safeguards.[62]

Exit[edit]

Exit is a Scottish organisation that supports a permissive model of right-to-die legislation[63] based on published research and recommendations from Glasgow University using an 'exceptions to the rule' (against euthanasia) format to facilitate transparency and open safeguards.[64] Exit published the world's first guide on assisted suicide, called How to Die With Dignity (1980); followed by Departing Drugs (1993), and the Five Last Acts series.[65] Exit also publishes a Blog with broad-ranging analysis of assisted-suicide related issues.[66]

Final Exit Network[edit]

Final Exit Network is a non-profit organization that is run by volunteers. It is one of the newer organizations in support of assisted suicide as it has only been in operation for the past four years.[67][third-party source needed]

World Federation of Right to Die Societies[edit]

The World Federation of Right to Die Societies was founded in 1980 and encompasses thirty-eight right to die organizations in twenty-three different countries.[68][third-party source needed]

Published research[edit]

A study approved by the Dutch Ministry of Health, the Dutch Ministry of Justice, and the Royal Dutch Medical Association reviewed the efficacy in 111 cases of physician-aided dying (PAD).[69] This showed that 32% of cases had complications. These included 12% with time to death longer than expected (45 min – 14 days), 9% with problems administering the required drugs, 9% with a physical symptom (e.g. nausea, vomiting, myoclonus) and 2% waking from coma. In 18% of cases the doctors provided euthanasia because of problems or failures with PAD.

The Portland (Oregon) Veterans Affairs Medical Center and the Department of Psychiatry at the Oregon Health and Science University set out to assess the prevalence of depression in 58 patients who had chosen PAD.[70] Of 15 patients who went to receive PAD, three (20%) had a clinical depression. All patients who participated in the study were determined in advance to be mentally competent. The authors conclude that the "...current practice of the (Oregon) Death with Dignity Act may fail to protect some patients whose choices are influenced by depression from receiving a prescription for a lethal drug".

In a Dutch study of patients with severe and persistent symptoms requiring sedation, the researchers found that only 9% of patients received a palliative care consultation prior to being sedated.[71]

Attitude of Healthcare professionals[edit]

A 1997 anonymous mail study directed by David A. Asch MD, MBA and Michael L. DeKay, Ph.D,[72] sent out surveys to 1,560 United States critical care nurses, and 73% responded about their feelings involving euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. The survey investigated the reasons why some critical care nurses were denouncers of the practice, while others were supporters of it. One explanation for why some critical care nurses have sympathetic tendencies towards euthanasia is because "some...see euthanasia as a legitimate response to end human suffering".[73] However, Asch and DeKay cited additional factors that influence health care professionals' attitudes towards euthanasia including religion, religiosity, and age.

In the UK, an extensive survey of 3733 medical physicians in 2009 was sponsored by the National Council for Palliative Care, Age Concern, Help the Hospices, Macmillan Cancer Support, the Motor Neurone Disease Association, the MS Society and Sue Ryder Care. It showed that the proportion against a change in the law was 66% against euthanasia and 65% against assisted dying. Opposition to euthanasia and PAS was highest amongst Palliative Care and Care of the Elderly specialists, while more than 90% of palliative care specialists are against a change in the law.[74]

In another UK study, by Glasgow University's Institute of Law & Ethics in Medicine, a postal survey of UK medical practitioners and pharmacists, 54% were in favour of a change in the law to allow physician-assisted suicide to take place in specific circumstances, with only 36% against. 60% of the 1000 practitioners who responded had treated a patient who was considering suicide, 12% personally knew another health professional who had assisted a patient to kill themselves and 4% had themselves provided the means (such as drugs or information about lethal acts) to assist a patient to kill themselves. One finding of the second study was that most medical practitioners found physician-assisted suicide preferable to voluntary euthanasia (43% in comparison to 19%), especially in view of the findings of a first study by the University which showed the public's preference for voluntary euthanasia. There was little by way of differences in the percentages of hospital physicians, medical GPs, surgeons or psychiatrists favouring a change in the law - approximately 48% were in favour. This was in stark contrast to the percentage of pharmacists in favour (72%) and anaesthetists (56%). Pharmacists were twice as likely as medical GPs to endorse the view that "if a patient has decided to end their own life then doctors should be allowed in law to assist". (McLean, S., 1997, "Sometimes a Small Victory", Institute of Law and Ethics in Medicine, University of Glasgow.)

Evidence shows that physicians already assist people to die illegally in the UK. In a 2009 survey of 8857 physicians, the proportion of UK deaths involving voluntary euthanasia (i.e. at the patient's request) was 0.21% (CI: 0–0.52), and involuntary euthanasia (i.e. without the patient's request) was 0.30% (0–0.60).[75]

Factors that influence physicians' attitudes towards physician-assisted death[edit]

Religion, religiosity, age, gender, previous experience with physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, and work environment are all factors which influence health professionals' attitudes towards physician-assisted death.

  • A study conducted in Australia on end-of-life treatment reported results that those who are the most likely to oppose physician-assisted death are older, western-educated, Catholic and female.[76]
  • Physicians who identify themselves as palliative care professionals are less willing to support the practice of physician-assisted death.[76]
  • Those who have previous engagement in euthanasia were more likely to respond to the survey that they felt that passive (assisted suicide through omission of life-preserving drugs or equipment) and active (assisted suicide where death is directly induced) euthanasia are ethical practices.[77]
  • Age is an important variable in predicting the attitudes of a health care professional towards euthanasia, "for every additional year of age the odds of having engaged in euthanasia decrease by 3.1%"[78]
  • The variable of age does not tell us whether age is the only factor in changing attitudes towards physician-assisted death or if the younger nurses simply reflect changes in attitudes towards physician-assisted death over time.[77]

Data on the practice of aid in dying can also be found from the reports produced in the jurisdictions where it is legal. For example, the Oregon Health Authority publishes annual reports[79] detailing the enactment of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act.

Opposition[edit]

"Slippery slope" argument[edit]

There are many health care professionals, especially those concerned with bioethics, who are opposed to PAS due to the detrimental effects that the procedure can have with regard to vulnerable populations. This argument is known as the "slippery slope".[80] This argument encompasses the apprehension that once PAS is initiated for the terminally ill it will progress to other vulnerable communities, namely the disabled, and may begin to be used by those who feel less worthy based on their demographic or socioeconomic status. In addition, vulnerable populations are more at risk of untimely deaths because, "patients might be subjected to PAD without their genuine consent".[81] However, recent studies claim that the available evidence suggests that the legalization of physician-assisted suicide might actually decrease the prevalence of involuntary euthanasia.[82]

Prejudices against the disabled[edit]

Also, prejudices against disabled people may be enacted with regards to end-of-life care. For example, 'do not resuscitate' orders are more frequently issued for those who become hospitalized and previously suffer from severe disabilities.[83] In addition, many people who suffer from lifelong disabilities suffer from "burn out",[84] which is a general feeling of depression and sadness that comes as a result of years of intolerance and prejudice. Naturally, those individuals suffering from "burn out" are more likely to want to refuse treatment and end their fight for life prematurely.

Conflict of interest[edit]

Some physicians and healthcare practitioners feel there may be a conflict of interest when it comes to abiding with legislation and patient requests for aid in dying. This is based upon a particular interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath stating that physicians should give no deadly medicine.[85][86] However, the translation and interpretation of the oath continues to be debated and change, and not all physicians swear the oath.[87]

Organizations opposed to assisted suicide[edit]

World Medical Association[edit]

Their official position is: "Physicians-assisted suicide, like euthanasia, is unethical and must be condemned by the medical profession. Where the assistance of the physician is intentionally and deliberately directed at enabling an individual to end his or her own life, the physician acts unethically. However the right to decline medical treatment is a basic right of the patient and the physician does not act unethically even if respecting such a wish results in the death of the patient."[88]

British Medical Association[edit]

British Medical Association

New Zealand Medical Association[edit]

Association for Palliative Medicine[edit]

Association for Palliative Medicine

British Geriatric Society[edit]

British Geriatric Society

Royal College of General Practitioners[edit]

Royal College of Physicians[edit]

[89]





Care Not Killing[edit]

Care Not Killing is a group based in the United Kingdom that combines a number of organisations opposed to assisted suicide under a common banner.[90]

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition[edit]

Founded in 1998, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is a Canadian organisation opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Not Dead Yet[edit]

Not Dead Yet is a United States disability rights group that opposes assisted suicide and euthanasia for people with disabilities.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops[edit]

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated its opposition to assisted suicide.[91]

The Russian Orthodox Church[edit]

The Russian Orthodox Church Canons consider any form of suicide, except suicides committed out of mental disturbances (insanity), a grave sin and a human fault: "A perpetrator of calculated suicide, who 'did it out of human resentment or other incident of faintheartedness' shall not be granted Christian burial or liturgical commemoration (Timothy of Alexandria, Canon 14).[92]

Improvements in end-of-life decision making[edit]

Currently only a small fraction of patients (about 15%) have clear directions in the form of a living will or a health care proxy in place to advise family members or physicians of their end-of-life wishes.[93] This leads to uncomfortable questions if the patient suddenly no longer has the ability to speak for themselves when answers are needed to important medical questions. Even if a patient has selected a proxy they may, "be guilt-ridden, wondering whether they acted too hastily or if their decision was inconsistent with the patient's desires".[94]

In order to preempt some of the difficulties that are associated with end-of-life care many medical schools and nursing programs now stress the importance of early discussions with the patient about their wishes and planning for the future.[93] Unfortunately, since the views concerning physician assisted suicide are so polarized, many doctors are reluctant to discuss withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. In fact, in a recent study of 58 physicians, 19 admitted that they did not feel comfortable discussing end-of-life care with their patients.[95]

In an effort to change the apprehension that is associated with end-of-life care new techniques are being explored to ensure more doctor to patient communication including:

  • analyzing the cognitive ability of patients to make their own decisions regarding end-of-life care[93]
  • encouraging doctors to initiate end-of-life conversations[93]
  • making sure that patients are made fully aware of all options regarding their personal medical treatment[93]
  • providing counseling and support for families of patients especially in situations where a decision to remove life support and/or stop treatment is involved[96]

In short, there are two major ways in which the physicians can more easily be made aware of the wishes of their patients. The first simply involves participation in the informed consent process, or "engaging competent patients in comprehensive discussions of treatment options and likely outcomes".[97] The second of these methods involves advance care planning which ensures that patients tell their doctors exactly what they wish to be done in case a medical emergency arises in which they are not able to speak for themselves.

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=assisted+suicide&submit.x=0&submit.y=0
  2. ^ http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD07-01.pdf
  3. ^ Pearlman, Robert. "Why Do Patients Request Physician-Assisted Death (a.k.a. Physician-Assisted Suicide)? - Euthanasia - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., 6 June 2008. Web. 03 Dec. 2013. Just J.
  4. ^ http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi/article_body.pl?language=nl&pub_date=2002-06-22&numac=2002009590&caller=summary
  5. ^ http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi/article_body.pl?language=fr&pub_date=2002-06-22&numac=2002009590&caller=summary
  6. ^ Adams M, Nys H (2003). "Comparative reflections on the Belgian Euthanasia Act 2002". Med Law Rev 11 (3): 353–76. doi:10.1093/medlaw/11.3.353. PMID 16733879. 
  7. ^ McDougall & Gorman 2008, p. 93
  8. ^ a b c McDougall & Gorman 2008
  9. ^ Whiting, Raymond (2002). A Natural Right to Die: Twenty-Three Centuries of Debate. Westport, Connecticut. ISBN 0-313-31474-8. 
  10. ^ a b Kluge, Eike-Henner W. (2000). "Assisted Suicide, Ethics and the Law: The Implication of Autonomy and Respect for Persons, Equality and Justice, and Beneficence". In Prado, C.G. Assisted Suicide: Canadian Perspectives. Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa Press. p. 83. 
  11. ^ http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/15/b-c-supreme-court-strikes-down-assisted-suicide-ban-as-unconstitutional/
  12. ^ "Assisted-suicide ruling to be appealed by Ottawa". CBC News. 
  13. ^ "Assisted suicide too risky, federal government argues in appeal against B.C. decision". The Globe and Mail (Toronto). 25 October 2012. 
  14. ^ "Right-to-die legal appeal interveners named". CBC News. 
  15. ^ http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/doctor-assisted-suicide-is-officially-legal-in-quebec
  16. ^ a b McDougall & Gorman 2008, p. 91
  17. ^ McDougall & Gorman 2008, p. 90
  18. ^ Whiting, Raymond (2002). A Natural Right to Die: Twenty-Three Centuries of Debate. Westport, Connecticut. p. 41. 
  19. ^ "World Laws on Assisted Suicide". Euthanasia Research & Guidance Organization. Retrieved 10 April 2014. 
  20. ^ a b McDougall & Gorman 2008, p. 84
  21. ^ McDougall & Gorman 2008, p. 86
  22. ^ Heneghan, Tom (1 July 2013). "Francois Hollande Pledges To Legalize Voluntary Euthanasia In France". Huffington Post. 
  23. ^ http://www.thelocal.fr/20130701/french-ethics-council-rejects-swiss-style-euthanasia
  24. ^ "German Criminal Code". German Federal Ministry of Justice. Retrieved 9 July 2013. 
  25. ^ a b Wolfslast, Gabriele (2008). ""Physician-Assisted Suicide and the German Criminal Law."". In Birnbacher, Dieter; Dahl, Edgar. Giving Death a Helping Hand: Physician Assisted Suicide and Public Policy. An international Perspective. Germany: Springer. p. 88. 
  26. ^ "German Criminal Code". German Federal Ministry of Justice. Retrieved 9 July 2013. 
  27. ^ http://www.ejura-examensexpress.de/online-kurs/entsch_show_neu.php?Alp=1&dok_id=2885
  28. ^ Wolfslast, Gabriele (2008). ""Physician-Assisted Suicide and the German Criminal Law."". In Birnbacher, Dieter; Dahl, Edgar. Giving Death a Helping Hand: Physician Assisted Suicide and Public Policy. An international Perspective. Germany: Springer. p. 90. 
  29. ^ "German Criminal Code". German Federal Ministry of Justice. Retrieved 9 July 2013. 
  30. ^ Wolfslast, Gabriele (2008). ""Physician-Assisted Suicide and the German Criminal Law."". In Birnbacher, Dieter; Dahl, Edgar. Giving Death a Helping Hand: Physician Assisted Suicide and Public Policy. An international Perspective. Germany: Springer. p. 92. 
  31. ^ Wolfslast, Gabriele (2008). ""Physician-Assisted Suicide and the German Criminal Law."". In Birnbacher, Dieter; Dahl, Edgar. Giving Death a Helping Hand: Physician Assisted Suicide and Public Policy. An international Perspective. Germany: Springer. pp. 87–95. 
  32. ^ http://www.alzheimer-europe.org/Policy-in-Practice2/Country-comparisons/Healthcare-and-decision-making-in-dementia/Iceland
  33. ^ "Luxembourg strips monarch of legislative role". The Guardian (London). 2008-12-12. Retrieved 9 July 2013. 
  34. ^ http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=191410
  35. ^ a b McDougall & Gorman 2008, p. 80
  36. ^ Schwarzenegger, Christian; Summers, Sarah J. (2005-02-03). "Hearing with the Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill". House of Lords Hearings (Zürich: University of Zürich Faculty of Law).  (PDF)
  37. ^ "Inciting and assisting someone to commit suicide (Verleitung und Beihilfe zum Selbstmord)". Swiss Criminal Code (in German) (Zürich: Süisse): Article 115. 1989-06-23. 
  38. ^ Whiting, Raymond (2002). A Natural Right to Die: Twenty-Three Centuries of Debate. Westport, Connecticut. p. 46. 
  39. ^ Prof. Dr. Christian Schwarzenegger and Sarah Summers of the University of Zurich's Faculty of Law, "Hearing with the Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill," House of Lords, Zurich, 3 February 2005 http://www.rwi.uzh.ch/lehreforschung/alphabetisch/schwarzenegger/publikationen/assisted-suicide-Switzerland.pdf
  40. ^ Lundin, Leigh (2009-08-02). "YOUthanasia". Criminal Brief. Retrieved 9 July 2013. 
  41. ^ "The Suicide Tourist", PBS FRONTLINE, March 2, 2010.
  42. ^ "Swiss vote backs assisted suicide: BBC News: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13405376
  43. ^ "He felt he needed to go, says widow of BBC Dignitas millionaire". Daily Mail (London). 11 June 2011. 
  44. ^ Huxtable, RichardHuxtable, Richard (2007). Euthanasia, Ethics and the Law: From Conflict to Compromise. Abingdon, UK; New York: Routledge Cavendish. ISBN 9781844721061. 
  45. ^ "Assisted Dying Bill - latest". BBC News Online. 
  46. ^ Director of Public Prosecution
  47. ^ [1]
  48. ^ "End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 38)". The Scottish Parliament. 21 January 2010. Retrieved 12 June 2011. 
  49. ^ "Margo MacDonald's End of Life Assistance Bill rejected". BBC News Online. 2010-12-01. 
  50. ^ http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/e7h1082zyc/YG-Archive-Dignity-in-Dying-results-180413-assisted-dying.pdf
  51. ^ http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ors.shtml
  52. ^ "State-by-State Guide to Physician-Assisted Suicide." Euthanasia - ProCon.org. N.p., 13 Dec. 2013. Web. 27 Mar. 2014. <http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000132>.
  53. ^ a b http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000132
  54. ^ http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year15.pdf
  55. ^ Sullivan, Nora. "Vermont Legislature Passes Assisted Suicide Bill." Charlotte Lozier Institute RSS. Charlotte Lozier Institute, 15 May 2013. Web. 04 Dec. 2013.
  56. ^ https://newmexico.tylerhost.net/ServeDocument.ashx?SID=0730da82-c2ce-4331-9d34-98fe74190124&RID=001664dd-e045-4d6c-b5ce-1294189b0a7a
  57. ^ Week, Willamette. "Death with Dignity, a decade later." Death with Dignity National Center. 19 03 2008. Death with Dignity. 3 Apr 2009 <http://www.deathwithdignity.org/news/news/willametteweek031908.asp>.
  58. ^ http://www.dignitas.ch/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22&lang=en
  59. ^ Humphry, D.. N.p.. Web. 5 Dec 2013. <http://www.finalexit.org/assisted_suicide_world_laws_page2.html>.
  60. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/retired-british-art-teacher-ends-life-at-dignitas-because-she-couldnt-adapt-to-modern-world-9242053.html
  61. ^ Wotton, Sarah. "About Dignity in Dying." Dignity in Dying: your life, your choice. Dignity in Dying. 3 Apr 2009.
  62. ^ Disability is an issue claimed both by activists and opponents in support of their arguments. Most court cases appealing for assisted suicide have been brought by disabled persons. A Yougov poll in the U.K. suggested that 80% of disabled persons support a change in the law, such as Lord Falconer's Bill to allow some form of assisted suicide.
  63. ^ http://www.euthanasia.cc/ssvbill.html
  64. ^ McLean S., Britton A., "Sometimes a Small Victory", Institute of Law and Ethics in Medicine, University of Glasgow, 1996
  65. ^ includes Five Last Acts II and Five Last Acts - The Exit Path
  66. ^ http://exiteuthanasia.wordpress.com/
  67. ^ Dincin, Jerry. "Home." Final Exit Network. 26 Feb 2009. Final Exit Network. 3 Apr 2009 <http://www.finalexitnetwork.org/>.
  68. ^ Grish, Gaye. "Right to Die News Letter." World Federation of Right to Die Societies: ensuring choices for a dignified death. Spring 2008. World Federation of Right to Die Societies. 3 Apr 2009 <http://www.worldrtd.net/node/857>.
  69. ^ Groenewoud, J. H.; Van Der Heide, A.; Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D.; Willems, D. L.; Van Der Maas, P. J.; Van Der Wal, G. (2000). "Clinical Problems with the Performance of Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide in the Netherlands". New England Journal of Medicine 342 (8): 551–6. doi:10.1056/NEJM200002243420805. PMID 10684914.  edit
  70. ^ Ganzini, L.; Goy, E. R.; Dobscha, S. K. (2008). "Prevalence of depression and anxiety in patients requesting physicians' aid in dying: cross sectional survey". BMJ 337: a1682. doi:10.1136/bmj.a1682. PMC 2562435. PMID 18842645.  edit
  71. ^ Rietjens, J.; Delden, J. V.; Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B.; Buiting, H.; Maas, P. V. D.; Heide, A. V. D. (2008). "Continuous deep sedation for patients nearing death in the Netherlands: descriptive study". BMJ 336 (7648): 810. doi:10.1136/bmj.39504.531505.25. PMC 2292332. PMID 18344245.  edit
  72. ^ Asch & DeKay 1997
  73. ^ Asch & DeKay 1997, p. 891
  74. ^ Seale C (April 2009). "Legalisation of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide: survey of doctors' attitudes". Palliat Med 23 (3): 205–12. doi:10.1177/0269216308102041. PMID 19318460. 
  75. ^ Seale C (April 2009). "End-of-life decisions in the UK involving medical practitioners". Palliat Med 23 (3): 198–204. doi:10.1177/0269216308102042. PMID 19318459. 
  76. ^ a b Wadell, Charles. Clarnette, Roger M. Smith, Michael. Oldham, Lynn. Kellehear, Allan. "Treatment decision-making at the end of life: a survey of Australian doctors' attitudes towards patients' wishes and euthanasia", MJA 165 (540), 1996.http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/nov18/waddell/waddell.html#subb8
  77. ^ a b Asch & DeKay 1997, p. 890
  78. ^ Asch & DeKay 1997, p. 893
  79. ^ http://public.health.oregon.gov/providerpartnerresources/evaluationresearch/deathwithdignityact/pages/ar-index.aspx
  80. ^ A More Perfect Death, NYT Op-Ed http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/opinion/07douthat.html
  81. ^ Mayo DJ, Gunderson M (2002). "Vitalism revitalized.... Vulnerable populations, prejudice, and physician-assisted death". Hastings Cent Rep 32 (4): 14–21. doi:10.2307/3528084. JSTOR 3528084. PMID 12362519. 
  82. ^ Ryan, CJ. (Oct 1998). "Pulling up the runaway: the effect of new evidence on euthanasia's slippery slope". J Med Ethics 24 (5): 341–4. doi:10.1136/jme.24.5.341. PMC 1377611. PMID 9800591. 
  83. ^ Vitalism Revitalized...page 16.
  84. ^ Vitalism Revitalized...page 18.
  85. ^ Randall, Fiona; Robin Downie (August 1, 2010). Clinical Medicine 10: 323–325. doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.10-4-323. 
  86. ^ Cohen, Jonathan S.; Fihn, Stephan D.; Boyko, Edward J.; Jonsen, Albert R.; Wood, Robert W. (14 July 1994). "Attitudes toward Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia among Physicians in Washington State". New England Journal of Medicine 331 (2): 89–94. doi:10.1056/NEJM199407143310206. 
  87. ^ "A guide to the Hippocratic Oath". BBC News. 26 October 2008. 
  88. ^ http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/e13b/
  89. ^ https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk
  90. ^ Cassidy J., Lobby Watch: Care Not Killing BMJ 2010;341:c7284 http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c7284
  91. ^ United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (2011). "To Live Each Day with Dignity: A Statement on Physician-Assisted Suicide". Retrieved March 10, 2014.
  92. ^ The Russian Orthodox Church, Department for External Church Relations. "THE BASIS OF THE SOCIAL CONCEPT: XII. Problems of bioethics". Retrieved May 6, 2014.
  93. ^ a b c d e Hayden LA (1999). "Helping Patients with End-Of-Life Decisions". The American Journal of Nursing 99 (4): 24BB–24EE. doi:10.2307/3472224. JSTOR 3472224. 
  94. ^ "Helping Patients with End-Of-Life Decisions" p. 2401.
  95. ^ "Helping Patients with End-Of-Life Decisions" p. 2402.
  96. ^ Helping Patients with End-Of-Life Decisions" p. 2402.
  97. ^ "Treatment decision-making at the end of life..." p. 6.

References[edit]

  • Asch, DA; Dekay, ML (September 1997). "Euthanasia among US critical care nurses. Practices, attitudes, and social and professional correlates". Med Care 35 (9): 890–900. doi:10.1097/00005650-199709000-00002. JSTOR 3767454. PMID 9298078. 
  • McDougall, Jennifer Fecio; Gorman, Martha (2008). Contemporary World Issues: Euthanasia. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO.