UNIVERSITY LAW COLLEGE QUETTA.

Assignment: EuthanasiaAssigner: Sir Asmat ullah

Assignee: Ihsan ullahRoll No. 11

LLB First YearDate:03/05/2016

Euthanasia(Mercy Killing, Assisted Suicide)

The painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable,

and painful disease or in an irreversible coma.

Euthanasia is the painless ending of a person’s life for reason of mercy,

Physician assisted suicide is the act in which a physician provides the mean for suicide of the incurably ill, The patient must take the final action that causes his/her death such as swallowing lethal drugs.

The word Euthanasia Originate from the “Greek” Word

(Eu- means good and thanatos means death)According to world medical association the euthanasia means “Deliberate and intentional actionWith a clear intention to end another person life under the following condition,,The subject is a competent informed person with incurable illness who voluntary asked for ending his life; The person who is acting known about the state of this person and about his wish to die and his doing this action with an intention to end life of this person; The action is done with compassion and without any personal profit.

"The intentional putting to death of a person with an incurable or painful disease intended as an act of mercy." Active euthanasia is: A mode of ending life in which the intent is to cause the patient's death in a single act (also called mercy killing)."

A Brief History of EuthanasiaI’ll Give No deadly medicine to any one if asked, Nor suggest any such counsel (Hippocrates Father of Modern medicine “400 B.C”)I’ll not give a lethal drugs to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plane. (Hippocratic oath)In the 1300s , suicide as well as helping people to kill themselves were considered as a criminal act.In the 1930s euthanasia was practiced for the first time by German physicians.In the 20th century, lot of organizations were formed to address the concerns regarding euthanasia. (voluntary euthanasia society)

Reason For Euthanasia

Advanced terminal illness that is causing unbearable suffering to the individual. This is the most common

reason to seek an early end.     Grave physical handicap which is so restricting that

the individual cannot, even after due consideration, counseling and re-training, tolerate such a limited existence. This is a fairly rare reason for suicide --

most impaired people cope remarkably well with their affliction -- but there are some who would, at a certain

point, rather die.

TYPES OF EUTHANASIA

There are 3 types of euthanasia

1. voluntary euthanasia 2. Involuntary euthanasia

3. non-voluntary euthanasia

1. VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA

1. euthanasia performed with the patient's consent is called voluntary euthanasia.

2. Voluntary euthanasia is the practice of ending a life in a painless manner. Voluntary euthanasia (VE) and physician-assisted suicide

(PAS) have been the focus of great controversy in recent years.3. Voluntary euthanasia is at the request of a fully competent person

whowishes to die.

2. Involuntary euthanasia

1. which performed on a patient against their will.2. Involuntary euthanasia occurs when euthanasia is performed on a

person who would be able to provide informed consent, but does not, either because they do not want to die, or because they were not

asked.3. Involuntary euthanasia occurs when a dying person could have been

but was not asked for their consent, or when a request for continuedtreatment is refused. Attaching DNR notices to the medical notes of

elderly or disabled patients without their knowledge can beconsidered a form of involuntary euthanasia

3. non-voluntary euthanasia

1. where the patient is unable to give their informed consent, for example child euthanasia)

2. Non-voluntary euthanasia (sometimes known as mercy killing) is euthanasia conducted when the explicit consent of the individual

concerned is unavailable, such as when the person is in a persistent vegetative state, or in the case of young children.

3. Non-Voluntary euthanasia takes place when a person is unable toconsent due to age, physical and/or mental incapacity. An example ofthis would be the decision to stop artificial feeding and hydration for

someone in a Persistent Vegetative State.

What is the difference between voluntary, Involuntary and non

voluntary euthanasia?

Voluntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed has requested to be killed.

Non-voluntary: When the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent.

Involuntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the contrary.

Euthanasia Can Be Active and Passive

Active Euthanasia: Active euthanasia describes cases where an action is performed with

the intention of causing death. An example of this would be giving alethal injection. This is currently illegal in the U.K.

Active euthanasia, which is defined as the intentional act of causing the death of a patient experiencing great suffering, is illegal in France, whereas allowing

patients to die is authorized by law under certain conditions2. Passive Euthanasia: Passive euthanasia describes cases where death is

intentionally causedby inaction. An example of this would be withdrawing or withholding

artificial nutrition or hydration or the use of a ventilator."Passive euthanasia" is usually defined as withdrawing medical treatment with the deliberate intention of causing the patient's death. For example, if a patient

requires kidney dialysis to survive, and the doctors disconnect the dialysis machine, the patient will presumably die fairly soon.

What is the difference between passive and active euthanasia?

Active euthanasia is when death is brought about by an act - for example when a person is killed by being given an overdose of pain-

killers. Passive euthanasia is when death is brought about by an omission - i.e.

when someone lets the person die. This can be by withdrawing or withholding treatment

The moral difference between killing and letting die. Many people make a moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia. They think that it is acceptable to withhold treatment and allow a patient to die,

but that it is never acceptable to kill a patient by a deliberate act.

LegalLet me point out here for those who might not know it that suicide is no longer a crime anywhere in the English-speaking world. (It used to be, and was punishable by giving all the dead person's money and goods to

the government.) Attempted suicide is no longer a crime, although under health laws a person can in most states be forcibly placed in a psychiatric

hospital for three days for evaluation.  But giving assistance in suicide remains a crime, except in the

Netherlands in recent times under certain conditions, and it has never been a crime in Switzerland, Germany, Norway and Uruguay. The rest of the world punishes assistance in suicide for both the mentally ill and the terminally ill, although the state of Oregon recently (Nov. l994) passed by ballot Measure 16 a limited physician-assisted suicide law. in (Feb.

l995) this is held up in the law courts. 

     Even if a hopelessly ill person is requesting assistance in dying for the most compassionate reasons, and the helper is acting from the most noble of motives, it remains a crime in the Anglo-American world. Punishments range from fines to fourteen years in prison. It is this catch- all prohibition which I and others wish to change. In a caring society, under the rule of law, we claim that there must be exceptions.

ETHICAL ISSUES

Whether the issue is euthanasia or physician’s assisted death, the heart of the controversy is whether there are any morally justifiable reasons to kill oneself, and since ancient times philosophers have weighed in on

this issue. We will look at the views of three classic philosophers on the subject. Next, when we turn to the contemporary moral debate regarding

end-of-life situations, we find a special challenge. On the one hand, virtually all parties agree that certain types of death-assistance measures are justified—such as passive euthanasia. On the other hand, virtually all parties also agree that there are limits to exactly what can be done to end

someone’s life—for example, you cannot euthanize someone who doesn’t want to die. Thus, the challenge is to find some criteria by which to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable death-assistance measures.

We will look at three possible criteria for making that distinction.

The Legal Status of Euthanasia

In the U.S., individual states enact their own laws regarding murder and homicide, and, accordingly, it is for each state to decide for itself how to

handle end-of-life situations. Passive euthanasia is legal in all states, where the medical profession itself establishes guidelines for what types of treatment can be withheld from dying patients. As of now, though, no

state permits active euthanasia, and only three state permits assisted suicide, namely, Oregon, Montana and Washington. Oregon was the first,

and because of its uniqueness, other states look to it as a test case for what the effects of such a policy might be elsewhere. Enacted in 1994,

the specific guidelines of Oregon’s

“Death With Dignity Act” are rather strict, and include the following conditions: (1) the person must be suffering from a terminal disease (with less than six months to live) and voluntarily express orally in writing his or her wish to die; (2) the person’s decision must be an informed one regarding his or her prognosis and the alternatives to

assisted death; (3) after the patient’s initial request he or she must wait 15 days before receiving a prescription for the death-causing medication,

and at that time the physician will offer the patient an opportunity to rescind the request. Oregon keeps detailed records of the patients who

avail themselves of the “Death with Dignity Act”

CONCLUSIONI Came on Conclusion that the Euthanasia is wrong in many ways. It degrades the moral character of patients and doctors that do not

give importance to the life given by our creator, God. It also opposes the constitutionalized law in countries, where euthanasia

is illegal. Furthermore, it desecrates the ethics of medicine. Finally it doesn’t end life with dignity but with disgrace. Euthanasia is

both a crime and immoral act, because it practices murder and an immoral act because it deprives God’s sovereignty.