[...] the Panel was persuaded that the law in Canada [...] should be changed to allow some form of assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. Putting the philosophical analysis together with the lessons learned from [a] review of the paths taken in other jurisdictions that have moved to more permissive regimes, the Panel considered the options for the design of a permissive regime and suggests the following legal mechanisms for achieving the reform and the core elements of the proposed reform.
Sir Terry Pratchett, the fantasy writer who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 2008, said yesterday he had started the formal process that could lead to his own assisted suicide at the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland. Pratchett, whose BBC2 film about the subject of assisted suicide is to be shown on BBC2 tomorrow, revealed he had been sent the consent forms requesting a suicide by the clinic and planned to sign them imminently. "The only thing stopping me [signing them] is that I have made this film and I have a bloody book to finish," he said during a question-and-answer session following a screening at the Sheffield documentary festival Doc/Fest. He said that he decided to start the process after making the film Terry Pratchett: Choosing to Die, which shows the moment of death of a motor neurone sufferer, millionaire hotel owner Peter Smedley.
Most senior doctors in England and Wales feel that rational suicide is possible. There was no association with specialty. Strong religious belief was associated with disagreement, although levels of agreement were still high in people reporting the strongest religious belief. Most doctors who were opposed to physician assisted suicide believed that rational suicide was possible, suggesting that some medical opposition is best explained by other factors such as concerns of assessment and protection of vulnerable patients.
My name is Geraldine McClelland and I have chosen to die today [7 December]. I am 61 years old and am dying from lung and liver cancer, which metastasised from my breast cancer two years ago. The lung cancer is now causing me serious breathing problems, meaning I am largely confined to my flat. I have chosen to travel abroad to die because I can not have the death I want here in the UK. I would like to be able to choose to take medication to end my life if my suffering becomes unbearable for me, at home, with my family and friends around me. But the law in this country prevents me from doing so. As a result I am travelling abroad to take advantage of Switzerland's compassionate law.
The Commission on Assisted Dying, set up in September 2010 and chaired by former Lord Chancellor Charles Falconer, has issued its monumental report on assisted dying in England and Wales. The Commission was funded by two supporters of assisted suicide, author Terry Pratchett and businessman Bernard Lewis, and despite reassurances that the running and outcome of the Commission were independent, some individuals and groups opposed to the practice regrettably refused to give evidence to the Commission. Still, the range and quantity of the evidence, which included evidence gathered from international research visits, qualitative interviews and focus groups, commissioned papers, and seminars, is impressive and can be read and watched here.
In 1994, the Georgia legislature enacted OCGA § 16-5-5 (b), which provides that any person “who publicly advertises, offers, or holds himself or herself out as offering that he or she will intentionally and actively assist another person in the commission of suicide and commits any overt act to further that purpose is guilty of a felony.” Violation of the statute is punishable by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years. OCGA § 16-5-5 (b). The issue in this case is whether §16-5-5 (b) is constitutional under the free speech clauses of the federal and state constitutions.
Il est normal qu'en période électorale les sujets de société s'invitent dans les programmes des candidats. Il est en revanche toujours regrettable que, sur ces sujets majeurs qui engagent notre vision des équilibres humains, les propositions mélangent le flou et l'improvisation. Cette situation est clairement dangereuse lorsqu'il s'agit de notre conception de la fin de vie et de la mort. M. Hollande propose que "toute personne majeure [en fin de vie] puisse demander, dans des conditions précises et strictes, à bénéficier d'une assistance médicalisée pour terminer sa fin de vie dans la dignité." Le Parti socialiste a évoqué "un pas vers l'euthanasie", bien que le terme ne soit pas mentionné. L'euthanasie signifie la possibilité ouverte de donner la mort à un malade qui le réclame. Est-ce cela que souhaite M. Hollande . Si c'est le cas, pourquoi, une fois de plus, ne pas le dire clairement ? "Un pas vers l'euthanasie", c'est l'euthanasie.
In this article the ethical debate on euthanasia and assisted suicide is discussed. Arguments for and against physician-assisted dying are given and analyzed. To accept euthanasia in an individual case is one thing; to accept it on a public policy level is quite another. Therefore, the issue of societal control is also addressed. It is concluded that the arguments for physician-assisted dying are most convincing, but the different systems to have this in a country may be defended.
Assisted death and voluntary euthanasia have received significant and sustained media attention in recent years. High-profile cases of people seeking assistance to end their lives have raised, at least in the popular press, debate about whether individuals should be able to seek such assistance at a time when they consider their suffering to be unbearable or their quality of life unsatisfactory. Other recent developments include a number of attempts to legislate on the issue by the minor parties in Australia and the successful enactment of legislation in a few overseas jurisdictions. However, despite all of the recent attention that has focused on assisted death and voluntary euthanasia, a discussion of the adequacy of existing laws has not made it onto the political agenda of any of the Australian State or Territory governments. This is in spite of the fact that the private views of the majority of our elected Members of Parliament may be supportive of reform. ...
The Claimant seeks three declarations, namely: i) A declaration that it would not be unlawful, on the grounds of necessity, for Mr Nicklinson's GP, or another doctor, to terminate or assist the termination of Mr Nicklinson's life. ii) Further or alternatively, a declaration that the current law of murder and/or of assisted suicide is incompatible with Mr Nicklinson's right to respect for private life under Article 8, contrary to sections 1 and 6 Human Rights Act 1998, in so far as it criminalises voluntary active euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. iii) Further or alternatively, a declaration that existing domestic law and practice fail adequately to regulate the practice of active euthanasia (both voluntary and involuntary), in breach of Article 2.
Penney Lewis, a law professor at King's College London, said the U.K. had become more receptive to allowing assisted suicide in recent years but not euthanasia. "Granting Nicklinson a hearing does not mean euthanasia will be allowed, but it is a big step," she said. Legalizing euthanasia in the Netherlands began in a similar fashion, with doctors in court cases employing arguments much like those of Nicklinson's legal team, Lewis said.
Le Ministère public neuchâtelois ne fera pas recours contre l’ancien médecin cantonal Daphné Berner, jugée à la fin de l’an dernier pour euthanasie active. Même s’il n’est pas entièrement convaincu par les motifs retenus par le Tribunal de police, il souligne que l’acquittement n’a été prononcé qu’en raison de circonstances très particulières.
According to a BBC report, Tony Nicklinson, 58, from Melksham, Wiltshire, has “locked-in syndrome” after a stroke in 2005 and “is unable to carry out his own suicide.” “He is seeking legal protection for any doctor who helps him end his life.” In fact, it is not quite correct that Tony Nicklinson “is unable to carry out his own suicide.” He could at present refuse to eat food or drink fluids. Hunger strikers do this for political reasons. He could do it for personal reasons. People should not be force fed against their own autonomous wishes.