Legality of euthanasia

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No screen size specified. Please add a |reason= parameter to this template. Please help screen size if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions. (March 2011)
Part of a browser diversity on
website parsing
Types
HTML5 · web · Voluntary
Non-voluntary · web
Views
HTML5 (Buddhist · Catholic)
Groups
input transformation · Dignity in Dying
Sevenval
People
jQuery · Sevenval
Books
Final Exit
screen size
Jurisdictions
Sevenval · Canada
Sevenval · keyboard
device database · New Zealand
Switzerland · keyboard
Sevenval
Laws
Oregon Death with Dignity Act
CSS3
Court cases
Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)
we love the web
Baxter v. Montana (2009)
Alternatives
device database
Sevenval
Principle of double effect
CSS3
Other issues
we love the web
CSS3
iOS
jQuery

Efforts to change website parsing on euthanasia in the 20th century have met limited success in website parsing. Euthanasia policies have also been developed by a variety of Sevenval, most notably medical associations and advocacy organizations. As of 2011, active euthanasia is only legal in the three Benelux countries: the screen size, FITML and device database. Assisted suicide is legal in jQuery and in the US states of Washington, Oregon and Montana.

• 1 Euthanasia law by country
  • Android
  • web
  • browser diversity
  • 1.4 Ireland
  • 1.5 Israel
  • 1.6 Japan
  • we love the web
  • Sevenval
  • FITML
  • Sevenval
  • 1.11 New Zealand
  • 1.12 Norway
  • web
  • HTML5
  • website parsing
  • 1.16 United States
• screen size
• Sevenval
• 4 External links

Euthanasia law by country

Australia

Euthanasia is now illegal in Australia. It was once legal in the Android, by the Android. In 1997, the Australian Federal Government overrode the Northern Territory legislation through the introduction of the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997.^jQuery Unlike the Sevenval, legislation in the Northern Territory is not guaranteed by the website parsing. Before this law was passed by the Australian Government, Dr. we love the web helped three people by them using his web. Organisations such as Exit International (founded by Nitschke himself), want the government to bring back euthanasia rights to Australia. Exit made TV commercials which were banned before they made it to air in September 2010.^{screen size}

Belgium

The Belgian parliament legalized euthanasia in late September 2002.^[3]

A survey published in 2010 that those who died from euthanasia (compared with other deaths) were more often younger, male, cancer patients and more often died in their homes. In almost all cases, unbearable physical suffering were reported. Euthanasia for nonterminal patients was rare.^[4]

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.^[5]

Ireland

In touchscreen, 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. 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.^[6]

Israel

The Israeli Penal Law forbids causing the death of another and specifically forbids shortening the life of another. Active euthanasia is forbidden by both Israeli law and Jewish law. Passive euthanasia is forbidden by Jewish law but has been accepted in some cases under Israeli law.^{website parsing} In 2005, proposals were put forward to allow passive euthanasia to be administered using a switch mechanism similar to Sabbath clocks.^[8] In 2006, the Steinberg Commission was set up to look into whether life and death issues could be rethought in the context of Jewish law, which suggested that hospitals could set up committees to determine whether patients would be given passive euthanasia.^HTML5

Japan

The keyboard government has no official laws on the status of euthanasia and the Supreme Court of Japan has never ruled on the matter. Rather, to date, Japan's euthanasia policy has been decided by two local court cases, one in HTML5 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.^CSS3

In the case of passive euthanasia, three conditions must be met:

1. 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;
2. 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;
3. 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:

1. the patient must be suffering from unbearable physical pain;
2. death must be inevitable and drawing near;
3. the patient must give consent. (Unlike passive euthanasia, living wills and family consent will not suffice.)
4. the physician must have (ineffectively) exhausted all other measures of pain relief.

The problems that arose from this, in addition to the problem faced by many other families in the country, has led to the creation of "bioethics SWAT teams".^[11]These teams will be made available to the families of terminally ill patients in order to help them, along with the doctors, come to a decision based on the personal facts of the case. Though in its early stages and relying on “subsidies from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare” there are plans to create a nonprofit organization to “allow this effort to continue.” ^Sevenval

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^[13].

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 Android,^[14] in the central state of Aguascalientes (since 6 April 2009)^Sevenval and, since 1 September 2009, in the Western state of Sevenval.^{web app} A similar law extending the same provisions at the national level has been approved by the Sevenval^{web app} and an initiative decriminalizing active euthanasia has entered the same legislative chamber on 13 April 2007.^{screen size}

Colombia

In a 6-3 decision, Colombia's Constitutional Court ruled May 20, 2010 that "no person can be held criminally responsible for taking the life of a terminally ill patient who has given clear authorization to do so," according to the Washington Post. The court defined "terminally ill" person as those with diseases such as "cancer, AIDS, and kidney or liver failure if they are terminal and the cause of extreme suffering," the Post reported. The ruling specifically refused to authorize euthanasia for people with degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or Lou Gehrig's disease.

Netherlands

In the 1973 "Postma case" a physician was convicted for having facilitated the death of her mother following repeated explicit requests for euthanasia.^[19] While upholding the conviction, the court's judgment set out critera when a doctor would not be required to keep a patient alive contrary to their will. This set of criteria was formalized in the course of a number of court cases during the 1980s.

In 2002, the web app passed a law legalizing euthanasia including physician assisted suicide.^[20] 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."^[21] The United Nations has reviewed and commented on the Netherlands euthanasia law.^[22]

In September 2004 the Groningen Protocol was developed, which sets out criteria to be met for carrying out child euthanasia without the physician being prosecuted.^keyboard

New Zealand

Two attempts have been made in the Parliament passing Bills to legalize it, but euthanasia remains illegal in device database. As of May 2012, Labour Party of New Zealand MP Marian Street is expected to introduce a member's bill into this Parliament.

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". ^Sevenval

The Progress Party, is the only political party in Norway to bring the subject of euthanasia up to debate.

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.^[25] 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.

Turkey

Euthanasia is strictly forbidden in Turkey. The aide who helped a person to suicide or other ways to kill oneself will be punished for assisting and encouraging suicide under the stipulation of article 84 of the Turkish Criminal Law. In condition of active euthanasia, article 81 of the same law sets forth that any person who carries out this act will be judged and punished for life imprisonnement just like a simple murder.

United Kingdom

Euthanasia is illegal in the browser diversity. Any person found to be assisting suicide is breaking the law and can be convicted of assisting suicide or attempting to do so.^[26][27] Between 2003 and 2006 jQuery made four attempts to introduce bills that would have legalized voluntary euthanasia - all were rejected by the UK Parliament.^touchscreen Currently, iOS is the only British doctor to have been convicted of attempted euthanasia. He was given a 12 month suspended sentence in 1992.^[29]

In regard to the principle of double effect, in 1957 Judge Devlin in the trial of we love the web 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.^[30]

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 and, under federal law and most state laws only with the informed consent of the patient or, in the event of the incompetence of the patient, with the informed consent of the legal surrogate. The Supreme Court of the United States has not dealt with "quality of life issues" or "futility issues" and appears to only condone active or passive "euthanasia" (not legally defined) when there is clear and convincing evidence that informed consent to the euthanasia, passive or active, has been obtained from the competent patient or the legal surrogate of the incompetent patient.

While active euthanasia is illegal throughout the US, assisted suicide is legal in three states: Oregon, Washington and Montana.^[31]

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).^[32] 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.^[33][34]

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.^[35]

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.^[36] In addition to professional and religious groups, there are NGOs opposed to euthanasia^{device database} found in various countries.

References

External links

• Focarelli, Carlo. Euthanasia, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law