The National Ethics Council has intensively discussed the issues involved in dealing responsibly with dying. It has perused a large volume of material, obtained expert opinions, consulted with doctors and other medical specialists, and held meetings in Augsburg and Münster at which it exposed itself to public debate. The outcome is enshrined in the Opinion now presented. Self-determination and care at the end of life continues the examination of the themes addressed in the Opinion The advance directive published in June 2005. The present analysis, in conjunction with the clarification of terminology here proposed, may facilitate interpretation of the recommendations set out in that Opinion.
Comprehensive guidance for doctors on care at the end of life, including difficult decisions on when to provide, withhold, or withdraw life prolonging treatment, will go out for consultation from the UK’s General Medical Council in March. The draft guidance was approved by the council at its February meeting, subject to minor amendments. The consultation will be launched in the week beginning 23 March and will end in July. The new advice takes account of the Mental Capacity Act 2005; government strategies on end of life care in England and Scotland; GMC guidance in 2007 on consent; recent research; and a Court of Appeal judgment on a legal challenge to the GMC’s 2002 guidance Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Treatments (Burke).
[W]hy is there such intense pressure to legalise medically assisted suicide or euthanasia? In the past 5 years in the UK there have been three bills introduced into the House of Lords seeking to legalise “assisted dying” in England and Wales; none has made progress and the last one was roundly defeated on a vote in 2006. Yet, despite Parliament's clear lack of appetite to change the law in this area, campaigners have redoubled their efforts, and the main pressure group (Dignity in Dying, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) is constantly presenting its case in the media.
The chairman of a Dutch suicide support group has been given a prison sentence and his organisation fined in a test ruling that highlights that doctors alone can assist suicide in the Netherlands. Gerard Schellekens, of the Foundation for a Voluntary Life (SVL), helped an 80 year old woman, who was bedridden with advanced Parkinson’s disease commit suicide after the GP at her nursing home refused euthanasia.
Some background information about the context of euthanasia in Belgium is presented, and Belgian law on euthanasia and concerns about the law are discussed. Suggestions as to how to improve the Belgian law and practice of euthanasia are made, and Belgian legislators and medical establishment are urged to reflect and ponder so as to prevent potential abuse. This study is based on a critical review of the literature supplemented by interviews I conducted in Belgium with leading scholars and practitioners in February 2003 and February 2005 about the practice of euthanasia. I first provide background information about euthanasia in Belgium and then discuss its law on euthanasia and voice some concerns, suggesting some constructive ideas to improve the practice of euthanasia.
Introduction: In The Netherlands, physicians have to be convinced that the patient suffers unbearably and hopelessly before granting a request for euthanasia. The extent to which general practitioners (GPs), consulted physicians and members of the euthanasia review committees judge this criterion similarly was evaluated.
THE NETHERLANDS AVT00/WS61419A Upper House of the States General 2000 - 2001 session 26 691 Review procedures for the termination of life on request and assisted suicide and amendment of the Criminal Code and the Burial and Cremation Act (Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act) European Journal of Health Law 8: 183-191, 2001.
Tang Siu-pun, also known as Ah Bun, wrote to the Hong Kong Legislative Council on 15 March 2004 to request euthanasia. His campaign for euthanasia alerted Hong Kong society to his plight and raised awareness of the issues relating to the 'right to die.' This article explains Ah Bun’s request in legal terms, illustrating the differences, controversial as they may be, between the right of a competent patient to have one’s ventilator (or other form of life support) removed, as opposed to euthanasia or assisted suicide. Both assisted suicide and euthanasia are currently illegal and raise many difficult moral and social questions. However, the law recognises, by way of the application of a general legal principle, a more limited right of a competent patient to have a life support machine switched off, even if this would inevitably accelerate, or lead to, death.
But there is evidence that some clinicians may already be using continuous deep sedation (CDS), as a form of "slow euthanasia". Research suggests use of CDS in Britain is particularly high - accounting for about one in six of all deaths.
Proponents of assisted suicide believe support for legalisation is growing among lawmakers and the public around the world. In the past year three names have been added to the list of places which permit it. The BBC's Vincent Dowd investigates whether assisted suicide is set to become even more common.
Ms. Francine Lalonde moved that Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity) be read the second time and referred to a committee: Mr. Speaker, I first introduced a private member's bill on the right to die with dignity in June 2005 . . . In fact, I introduced this bill so that people would have a choice, the same right to choose that people in other countries have. My conviction has grown stronger, and that is why I am introducing an amended bill on the right to die with dignity, Bill C-384. Briefly, it amends the Criminal code so that a medical practitioner does not commit homicide just by helping a person to die with dignity if the person continues to experience severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief or suffers from a terminal illness.
Subsequent to an intensive three-year period of reflection, the CMQ is revealing its perspective and conclusions today regarding end-of-life care and euthanasia. The CMQ embraces the point of view of the patient who is confronting imminent and inevitable death. In such a situation, the patient looks to their physician and generally requests that they be able to die without undue suffering and with dignity. Neither surveys, nor attorneys, nor politicians can properly advise the physician and the patient facing this situation. In the majority of cases, the patient and their doctor find the appropriate analgesia that respects the ethical obligation of physicians not to preserve life at any cost, but rather, when the death of a patient appears to be inevitable, to act so that it occurs with dignity and to ensure that the patient obtains the appropriate support and relief.