1.

Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient who is suffering from an incurable and
painful disease. Do you think euthanasia is ethical? Yes No
2. Should there be a right to die? Yes, no maybe don’t know
3. Suppose you know that you have an incurable disease. Would you prefer to end your
life or step into a life full of pain?
4. When a person has a disease that cannot be cured and is living in severe pain, do you
think doctors should or should not be allowed by law to assist the patient to commit
suicide if the patient requests it? Why or why not?
5. Have you ever thought about suicide? Yes No

6. There are many arguments for and against legalizing euthanasia. Do you support the
cause? What are your views.
7. what if euthanasia is legalised, how do you think its misuses can be prevented.
8. is it right on the part of the physician to assist suicide to a person? yes no
9. There should be
A law-allowing physician assisted suicide
A law-prohibiting physician assisted suicide
No law, leave it to physician-patient relationship
No law, medical profession should provide guidelines

10. do you think that our life span is god’s wish and ending it purposely is an
unpardonable sin?
11. Pain is bearable to an extent. What if someone in your close to you is suffering
through an incurable pain and decides to go for euthanasia, would you support
him/her?
12. a meaningless life is a burden to the family too. Do you think that dying is better than being
in the hospital for months?
13. do you think that courts should give permission for death in case a person has no will
power to live?
14. Who should take the decision for euthanising a person? Family, doctor, himself, other
15. If someone is surviving because of a life support machine, do you think the doctor
should decide when/whether the machine is turned off?
16. What do you think about the social acceptance of euthanasia in a society like india?
Euthanasia is when a person's life is ended because of disease or pain, which has
made them suffer. This is different from assisted suicide, where a person helps
someone kill themselves. It is also different to murder, where the reason is not
suffering, but to kill for the killer's own ends. Euthanasia can be voluntary, where the
person who dies asks for help in ending their life. Where the person is unable to
make their decision known, it is usually called non-voluntary euthanasia. Where
someone is killed against their will, it is usually called murder.
Euthanasia is illegal in most countries. It is permitted in a small number of countries,
such as the Netherlands, Belgium and Victoria, Australia.[1] Where it is permitted
there are many rules, and only in cases where the patient is terminally ill. Though
euthanasia is not legal in the United States, doctors can assist people to kill
themselves. This is legal in Washington, Oregon, and Montana. Physician Assisted
Suicide (PAD) is different to euthanasia; it is about who gives the medication to end
a patient’s life. The World Federation of Right to Die Societies says physician-
assisted suicide means "making lethal means available to the patient to be used at a
time of the patient’s own choosing." In these cases the patient takes the legal dose
of poison themselves, it is not given by the doctor. It is euthanasia when the doctor
has the main role in ending the patient’s life by giving the poison.

Types of euthanasia
Euthanasia can be active or passive, and voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary.
Many people see important differences and they can accept some types but not
others.
Voluntary and involuntary euthanasia
Euthanasia can also be classed as voluntary or involuntary.

Voluntary: When euthanasia is conducted with consent. Voluntary euthanasia is

currently legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and the states
of Oregon and Washington in the U.S.

Non-voluntary: When euthanasia is conducted on a person who is unable to consent

due to their current health condition. In this scenario the decision is made by another
appropriate person, on behalf of the patient, based on their quality of life and suffering.

Involuntary: When euthanasia is performed on a person who would be able to provide

informed consent, but does not, either because they do not want to die, or because
they were not asked. This is called murder, as it's often against the patients will.

Passive and active euthanasia

There are two procedural classifications of euthanasia:
Passive euthanasia is when life-sustaining treatments are withheld. The definitions are
not precise. If a doctor prescribes increasing doses of strong painkilling medications,
such as opioids, this may eventually be toxic for the patient. Some may argue that this
is passive euthanasia.

Others, however, would say this is not euthanasia, because there is no intention to take
life.

Active euthanasia is when someone uses lethal substances or forces to end a patient's
life, whether by the patient or somebody else.

Active euthanasia is more controversial, and it is more likely to involve religious, moral,
ethical, and compassionate arguments.

Euthanasia arguments
Some people believe that euthanasia should be allowed, and some people think that
it should not.
Slippery slope[change | change source]
Some people believe that allowing euthanasia will result in bad things happening. If
it is allowed for people asking to die, then it might be allowed for people who are
very sick but are not able to ask to die. If that happens, then maybe it would be
allowed for people who are very sick and will not recover, but do not want to die.
This is called the "slippery slope" argument.[7]
People who believe in the slippery slope argument point to times when this
happened. In Germany, Adolf Hitler allowed disabled children to be killed, and called
it euthanasia. People now agree that this was wrong, but if euthanasia was allowed
it could happen again. They think it is too big a risk to allow euthanasia at all. [7]
Other people say there is a big difference between killing a very sick person who
asks to die, and killing a child with a disability. They do not think euthanasia will lead
to bad things. They say that Hitler's actions were not euthanasia.[7]
The American Medical Association (AMA) and other doctors believe it is a doctor's
role to help, not kill people.[source?] In one study 76% of doctors said they would not
carry out euthanasia, even if it was legal.[source?]They feel patients would not trust
them. In the Netherlands where euthanasia is legal, 60% of older people in one
study were scared that their their doctors would kill them.[source?]

Alternatives to euthanasia
Palliative care
Palliative care is when people who are ill and going to die are given special care to
make them more comfortable. It may include hospice care, when the patient is sent
to a special hospital for people who are dying. Palliative care can involve pain relief
and help for the patient and family to come to terms with death. In some cases,
doctors will give patient drugs which make them stay asleep, so that they will not
feel pain.[8][9]
Palliative care is not perfect, and so it is not always seen as a replacement for
euthanasia. There is still some pain, and there can be other side-effects, where the
patient can still feel very sick. Palliative care is not available for all people, and not
all people who wish to die through euthanasia are so sick that they will die soon.
Some people have healthy bodies, but they are suffering in other ways, and
palliative care will not always help them.[7]
Principle of double effect
The principle of double effect was first described by Thomas Aquinas over 700
years ago. It says that it is sometimes alright to do a bad thing if something good
happens, and if a bad ending was not wanted.[10] Aquinas used the example of self
defense: sometimes a person will kill someone who attacks them, but killing was not
what the person was trying to do. They only wanted to protect themselves. So even
though killing someone is bad, wanting to protect themselves was not.[11]
Some people say that doctors may treat a person to reduce the their pain, and as a
result the person will die sooner. If the doctor gives the treatment in order to help the
patient die, then it is euthanasia. But if the doctor gives the treatment in order to stop
the pain, and does not intend for the patient to die, then it may not be euthanasia,
even if the doctor knew that the treatment would kill the patient.[11]
Assisted suicide
Suicide is when a person kills themselves. Sometimes when a person is very sick
they need help to die, and this is called assisted suicide.[12] In some countries people
are allowed to help as long as they do not kill the person,[13] and it can be seen as a
more acceptable option because it must be the person's own decision. [12] Because
the assisting person did not kill, it is not always considered to be euthanasia. [7]

History
One argument against euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is the Hippocratic Oath,
dating back some 2,500 years. All doctors take this oath.

The Hippocratic Oath

The original oath included, among other things, the following words:

"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion
to this effect."
There are variations of the modern oath.

One states:

"If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within
my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced
with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty."
As the world has changed since the time of Hippocrates, some feel that the original
oath is outdated. In some countries, an updated version is used, while in others, for
example, Pakistan, doctors still adhere to the original.

As more treatments become available, for example, the possibility of extending life,
whatever its quality, is an increasingly complex issue.

Euthanasia in the United States

In the U.S. and other countries, euthanasia has been a topic of debate since the early
1800s.

In 1828, the first anti-euthanasia law in the U.S. was passed in New York state. In time,
other states followed suit.

In the 20th Century, Ezekiel Emmanual, a bioethicist of the American National Institutes
of Health (NIH) said that the modern era of euthanasia was ushered in by the
availability of anesthesia.

In 1938, a euthanasia society was established in the U.S., to lobby for assisted suicide.

Physician-assisted suicide became legal in Switzerland in 1937, as long as the doctor

ending the patient's life had nothing to gain.

During the 1960s, advocacy for a right-to-die approach to euthanasia grew.

The Netherlands decriminalized doctor-assisted suicide and loosened some restrictions

in 2002. In 2002 doctor-assisted suicide was approved in Belgium.

In the U.S., formal ethics committees now exist in hospitals, nursing homes and
hospitals, and advance health directives, or living wills, are common around the world.
These became legal in California in 1977, with other states soon following suit. In the
living will, the person states their wishes for medical care, should they become unable
to make their own decision.

In 1990 the Supreme Court approved the use of non-active euthanasia.

In 1994, voters in Oregon approved the Death with Dignity Act, allowing physicians to
assist terminal patients who were not expected to survive more than 6 months.

The US Supreme Court adopted such laws in 1997, and Texas made non-active
euthanasia legal in 1999.

The Terri Schiavo case galvanized public opinion in Florida and the U.S. Schiavo had a
cardiac arrest in 1990, and spent 15 years in a vegetative state before her husband's
request to allow her to pass was granted.

The case involved various decisions, appeals, motions, petitions, and court hearings
over a number of years before the decision was made to disconnect Schiavo's life
support in 2005.

The Florida Legislature, U.S. Congress, and President Bush all played a role.

In 2008, 57.91 percent of voters in Washington State chose in favor of the Death with
Dignity Act, and the act became law in 2009.

Controversy
Various arguments are commonly cited for and against euthanasia and physician-
assisted suicide.

Arguments for
Freedom of choice: Advocates argue that the patient should be able to make their own
choice.

Quality of life: Only the patient really knows how they feel, and how the physical and
emotional pain of illness and prolonged death impacts their quality of life.

Dignity: Every individual should be able to die with dignity.

Witnesses: Many who witness the slow death of others believe that assisted death
should be allowed.

Resources: It makes more sense to channel the resources of highly-skilled staff,

equipment, hospital beds, and medications towards life-saving treatments for those
who wish to live, rather than those who do not.

Humane: It is more humane to allow a person with intractable suffering to be allowed to

choose to end that suffering.

Loved ones: It can help to shorten the grief and suffering of loved ones.

We already do it: If a beloved pet has intractable suffering, it is seen as an act of

kindness to put it to sleep. Why should this kindness be denied to humans?

Arguments against
The doctor's role: Health care professionals may be unwilling to compromise their
professional roles, especially in the light of the Hippocratic Oath.

Moral and religious arguments: Several faiths see euthanasia as a form of murder and
morally unacceptable. Suicide, too, is "illegal" in some religions. Morally, there is an
argument that euthanasia will weaken society's respect for the sanctity of life.

Patient competence: Euthanasia is only voluntary if the patient is mentally competent,

with a lucid understanding of available options and consequences and the ability to
express that understanding and their wish to terminate their own life. Determining or
defining competence is not straightforward.

Guilt: Patients may feel they are a burden on resources and are psychologically
pressured into consenting. They may feel that the financial, emotional, and mental
burden on their family is too great. Even if the costs of treatment are provided by the
state, there is a risk that hospital personnel may have an economic incentive to
encourage euthanasia consent.

Mental illness: A person with depression is more likely to ask for assisted suicide, and
this can complicate the decision.
Slippery slope: There is a risk that physician-assisted suicide will start with those who
are terminally ill and wish to die because of intractable suffering, but then begin to
include other individuals.

Possible recovery: Very occasionally, a patient recovers, against all the odds. The
diagnosis might be wrong.

Palliative care: Good palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary.

Regulation: Euthanasia cannot be properly regulated.

Statistics
Opinions appear to be growing in favor of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

In 2013, researchers published findings of a survey in which they asked people from 74
countries their opinions on physician- assisted suicide.

Overall, 65 percent of respondents voted against physician-assisted suicide. In 11 of

the 74 countries, the vote was mostly for.

In the U.S., where 1,712 respondents represented 49 states, 67 percent voted against.
In 18 states, the majority were for physician-assisted suicide. These 18 did not include
Washington or Oregon.

In 2017, a Gallup poll indicated that 73 percent of respondents were in favor of

euthanasia in the U.S., and 67 percent were in favor of doctor-assisted suicide.

Among weekly churchgoers, Gallup found that 55 percent were in favor of a doctor
ending the life of a patient who is terminally ill, compared with 87 percent of those who
do not regularly attend church.

It is also a political issue. Gallup's 2017 poll found that almost 9 out of 10 liberals are in
favor, compared with 79 percent of moderates and 60 percent of conservatives.

How many people die each year?

In countries where euthanasia or assisted suicide are legal, they are responsible for a
total of between 0.3 and 4.6 percent of deaths, over 70 percent of which relate to
cancer. In Oregon and Washington states, fewer than 1 percent of physicians write
prescriptions that will assist suicide each year.