[...] 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.
Marcia Angell was an editor of the most prestigious medical journal in the world for two decades. She currently gives monthly lectures on ethics to faculty at Harvard Medical School. And she served on a panel that gave advice on medical issues to the White House. But Dr. Angell’s credentials were challenged, Wednesday, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia when a lawyer for the federal Department of Justice tried to prevent her affidavit from being entered in a case concerning physician-assisted suicide.
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.
“The current legal status of assisted dying is inadequate and incoherent...” The Commission on Assisted Dying was set up in September 2010 to consider whether the current legal and policy approach to assisted dying in England and Wales is fit for purpose. In addition to evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the legal status quo, the Commission also set out to explore the question of what a framework for assisted dying might look like, if such a system were to be implemented in the UK, and what approach to assisted dying might be most acceptable to health and social care professionals and to the general public.
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.
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.
Sans prononcer une seule fois le mot, comme pendant sa campagne électorale, François Hollande a lancé mardi 17 juillet un débat national sur l'euthanasie, qui a les faveurs d'une majorité des Français. Le président a pris l'engagement de développer les soins palliatifs et une réforme "dans les prochains mois". M. Hollande a aussi posé la question de dépasser la loi Leonetti de 2005 qui s'oppose à l'acharnement thérapeutique sans permettre de déclencher un geste médical pour provoquer la mort.
Our angst is not limited to cases of assisted-suicide. It is rather that engaging in it alters the mission of medicine. It strikes at the very core of our beings as healers. It would leave an indelible imprint on dialogues with all patients. Our worry is anchored in the deep recognition of the vulnerability of sick persons and the power differential that exists in the doctor-patient relationship.
The family of a man who fought for the right-to-die hope to continue the campaign after seeking permission to appeal against a High Court ruling. Tony Nicklinson, 58, who suffered from locked-in syndrome, died in August, a week after losing his legal bid to end his life with a doctor's help. His family have lodged papers at the Court of Appeal asking to allow his widow, Jane, to take up his case.
Un débat interne à l’ensemble de l’Institution ordinale a été conduit avant cette expression publique. Il en résulte que la fin de la vie d’une personne dans ces situations implique profondément le corps médical selon les principes éthiques de bienfaisance et d’humanité. L’Ordre national des médecins propose donc de promouvoir une meilleure connaissance de la loi Leonetti et d’envisager des améliorations susceptibles de répondre à des situations exceptionnelles. L’Ordre national des médecins apportera sa contribution au débat sociétal quant à l’euthanasie délibérée et au suicide assisté.
Dr Iain Kerr came under fire from Sir Graeme Catto, a former president of the General Medical Council (GMC) which registers UK doctors and now chairman of Dignity in Dying – a group which wants to give the terminally ill the option of killing themselves. Sir Graeme, who lives in Aberdeen, said he disapproved of the help Dr Kerr gave to elderly patients who were intent on suicide. Dr Kerr, who was a GP at Williamwood Medical Centre in Clarkston, East Renfrewshire, confessed to supplying sleeping tablets to a couple who wanted to end their lives together. He also revealed he had advised another pensioner how to use anti-depressants he was taking to kill himself and visited the patient while they took effect. Sir Graeme said: "Dignity in Dying is an organisation that is committed to working within the law to change the law. We simply do not condone healthcare professionals from medicine or nursing or any other group taking matters into their own hands. In Iain Kerr's case that is w...
Physician-assisted suicide laws in Oregon and Washington require the person's current competency and a prognosis of terminal illness. In The Netherlands voluntariness and unbearable suffering are required for euthanasia. Many people are more concerned about the loss of autonomy and independence in years of severe dementia than about pain and suffering in their last months. To address this concern, people could write advance directives for physician-assisted death in dementia. Should such directives be implemented even though, at the time, the person is no longer competent and would not be either terminally ill or suffering unbearably? We argue that in many cases they should be, and that a sliding scale which considers both autonomy and the capacity for enjoyment provides the best justification for determining when: when written by a previously well-informed and competent person, such a directive gains in authority as the later person's capacities to generate new critical interests a...
An international leader in bioethics, Peggy [Battin] explored the right to a good and easeful death by their own hand, if need be, for people who were terminally ill, as well as for those whose lives had become intolerable because of chronic illness, serious injury or extreme old age. She didn’t shy away from contentious words like “euthanasia.” In the weeks after the accident, Peggy found herself thinking about the title character in Tolstoy’s “Death of Ivan Ilyich,” who wondered, “What if my whole life has been wrong?” Her whole life had involved writing “wheelbarrows full” of books and articles championing self-determination in dying. And now here was her husband, a plugged-in mannequin in the I.C.U., the very embodiment of a right-to-die case study.
Compromise on moral matters attracts ambivalent reactions, since it seems at once laudable and deplorable. When a hotly-contested phenomenon like assisted dying is debated, all-or-nothing positions tend to be advanced, with little thought given to the desirability of, or prospects for, compromise. In response to recent articles by Søren Holm and Alex Mullock, in this article I argue that principled compromise can be encouraged even in relation to this phenomenon, provided that certain conditions are present (which I suggest they are). In order to qualify as appropriately principled, the ensuing negotiations require disputants to observe three constraints: they should be suitably reflective, reliable and respectful in their dealings with one another. The product that will result from such a process will also need to split the difference between the warring parties. In assisted dying, I argue that a reduced offence of ‘compassionate killing’ can achieve this. I acknowledge, however, t...
Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying Bill [HL Bill 24] is the fourth of its kind to come before the House of Lords in the last ten years. None of its predecessors has made progress and the last one (Lord Joffe's Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill) was rejected in May 2006. This latest bill is little different from Lord Joffe's - it seeks to license doctors to supply lethal drugs to terminally ill patients to enable them to end their lives. The bill contains no safeguards, beyond stating eligibility criteria, to govern the assessment of requests for assisted suicide. It relegates important questions such as how mental capacity and clear and settled intent are to be established to codes of practice to be drawn up after an assisted suicide law has been approved by Parliament. This is wholly inadequate for a bill, such as this, with life-or-death consequences. Parliament cannot responsibly be asked to approve such a radical piece of legislation without seeing the nature of the safegua...