A inequality in palliative care in places around the world is not enough to justify its circumvention. Legalizing physician-assisted suicide is merely a part of the debate about improving end-of-life care.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract Background Euthanasia is one of the most intriguing ethical, medical and law issues that marked whole XX century and beginning of the XXI century, sharply dividing scientific and unscientific public to its supporters and opponents.
It also appears as one of the points where all three major religions Catholic, Orthodox, and Islamic have the same view. They are strongly against legalizing mercy killing, emphasizing the holiness of life as a primary criterion by which the countries should start in their considerations.
Studying criminal justice systems in the world, the authors concluded that the issue of deprivation of life from compassion is solved on three ways. On the first place, we have countries where euthanasia is murder like any other murder from the criminal Euthanasia mercy or murder.
Second, the most numerous are states where euthanasia is murder committed under privilege circumstances. On the third place, in the Western Europe we have countries where euthanasia is a legal medical procedure, under requirements prescribed by the law.
In this paper, authors have made a brief comparison of the solutions that exist in some Islamic countries, where euthanasia is a murder, with Western countries, where it represents completely decriminalized medical procedure.
The debate over legalizing euthanasia is like earthquake 1 — 4sharply divides the scientific and unscientific public on its supporters and opponents, and although through literature pervades the opinion that this topic has been exhausted 5.
In the maelstrom of issues that this topic opens, legislators all around the world try to find a practical solution, in order to resolve adequately the question of euthanasia. The line that separates admissible from impermissible merciful deprivation of life through the centuries has consistently been moved: Globally, there are three main ways of regulation of mercy killing.
One group of countries equates it with ordinary murder, while the second group represents the view that the euthanasia is privileged murder. Finally, in the third group euthanasia is decriminalized upon fulfillment of prescribed conditions. In Islamic countries, euthanasia is prohibited, both in the East 6 and in the Bosnia and Herzegovina.
It is seen as non-Islamic 7 and it is equalized to the murder. Accordingly, in the countries where euthanasia is legally punishable, sentences vary from very lenient to the death penalty, as was the case in the Islamic countries 8.
Since the debate over the legalization of active euthanasia does not subside for many years, its supporters and opponents have created strong organizations that represent their beliefs about the im morality and in feasibility of the same.
The focus of the problem lies in the question what extent is necessary to respect the life of terminally ill patients, and accordingly provide strong arguments. In other words, the question is whether in addition to the right on life, as a fundamental human right guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights and Liberties, there is a right to die, established through the right to self-determination.
Thus, opponents of legalization of active euthanasia, as primary argument, emphasize the holiness of life at all costs which is supported primarily with arguments in Islamic and Christian religion, which prohibit any form of suicide 79while its supporters believe that the moral obligation of doctors is to end the life of terminally ill patient who is suffering, but they also highlight the strong individual autonomy in the matters of life and death.
In short, both supporters and opponents summarize most of their arguments on the concept of respect for the patient, where they allocate four forms: Therefore, inter alia, any discussion of euthanasia leads to objections based on religious grounds.Hence, euthanasia is not a simple or single issue, but actually involves four distinct situations: 1) voluntary active euthanasia, 2) involuntary active euthanasia, 3) voluntary passive euthanasia, 4) involuntary passive euthanasia.
Euthanasia as Mercy or Murder "In keeping with the root definition of 'euthanasia'- literally [meaning] 'good death'- [supporters] of euthanasia insist they are talking about helping terminally ill patients in insufferable pain die a dignified death- at the patient's request.
Euthanasia — from the Greek eu thanatos meaning good death — is the intentional and deliberate ending of a human life either by withholding necessary, murder. Murder is the deliberate killing of an innocent person.
So-called “mercy killing” and the efforts of the Hemlock Society and the late Dr. Jack Kevorkian to make euthanasia. The Dilemma of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Essays. The Dilemma of Euthanasia Jack Kevorkian, serving a toyear prison sentence for second-degree murder for giving a lethal injection to Thomas Youk, was honored as a humanitarian on April Aug 28, · Mary E.
White was a highly regarded scientist whose mind was ravaged by dementia. When her daughter was accused of murdering her this month, it set off a broader debate in Australia on euthanasia. May 14, · Introduction. Euthanasia, i.e. mercy killing is both historical and contemporary problem of medicine, law, ethics and religion, which is reflected in the multitude of interwoven concepts and different legislative solutions of that question all over the world.