Those who would deny patients a legal right to euthanasia or assisted suicide typically appeal to two arguments: Both are scare tactics, the rhetorical force of which exceeds their logical strength. It is, of course, easier to assert the existence of a slippery slope than to prove that it exists. Opponents of a legal right to die thus point to the Netherlands, for example, and note how the law permitting euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide in that country has become steadily more permissive.
A refutation of some arguments against voluntary euthanasia 2. To assess if the Bill, if enacted, could be abused, it is useful to consider previous legislation.
There were significant measures in that Act to ensure that patients were not improperly coerced into euthanasia. Most of these measures seem to have been, incorporated in the Bill.
The Northern Territory law dictates that the patient must personally initiate the process, consider the options for treatment and palliative care, be psychologically assessed, sign a request, obtain second opinions, consider the effect on the family, use qualified interpreters if necessary and endure a cooling off period.
The patient can of course change their mind at any time and stop the process instantly. Additionally, detailed records must Refutation about euthanasia kept. Government regulations must be followed. The Coroner must be informed and has a statutory responsibility to report to the Attorney General and parliament any concern regarding the operation of the legislation.
To kill another without these conditions being fulfilled is to commit murder under the Northern Territory Criminal Code—penalty being mandatory life in prison. Consequently, such patients will be considered ineligible for euthanasia.
No worst-case scenario is impossible, but it is extremely unlikely that voluntary euthanasia legislation, such as that proposed by the Bill, could be abused. Nonetheless, a legislated regime must be preferable to the unregulated voluntary euthanasia activity that occurs now without any controls.
If the Bill is not enacted, that will mean that politicians are effectively sanctioning the illegal activities of the thousands of Australians, and hundreds of Canberrans, who have been importing, and will continue to import, illegal drugs.
This includes people who might not want voluntary euthanasia being encouraged to request it. This argument seems to be basically a catch-all for voluntary euthanasia opponents. The argument comes in a number of forms. First, there are concerns that those who are vulnerable, possibly the elderly, disabled, members of certain racial or ethnic groups, and the poor, will be under pressure to have euthanasia, possibly because these people might not have appropriate access to medical, psychological or palliative care services.
Appropriate safeguards have been established in international legislation to mitigate this risk. Similar safeguards are in the Bill, involving three medical practitioners, one of whom is a qualified psychiatrist. It is improbable to imagine that a terminally ill person who wants to stay alive but feels compelled to request voluntary euthanasia because society is not supporting them or that they otherwise feel pressure could convince three medical practitioners that their decision to have euthanasia was made without pressure, coercion, or otherwise was not voluntary.
Second, an argument that has often been raised is that unscrupulous relatives, in attempting to rid themselves of a terminally ill parent or relative, will apply pressure to the terminally ill person to seek euthanasia.
Such a scenario is highly improbable. My experience is that loving relatives are distressed by the fact that their relative is terminally ill.
In this case their loved ones would literally be unloved. The safeguards noted above still apply.
The Bill draws the line.Euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending a life to relieve suffering. For example, a doctor who gave a patient with terminal cancer an overdose of muscle relaxants to end their life would be considered to have committed euthanasia.
A positive and correct valuation of human life will support decisively whether euthanasia or mercy killing is or should be moral, legal, and ethical. e-BOOKS. There is a lot of interest across the region for electronic or e-books, books in digital form that can be read from a dedicated e-book reader such as the .
The Human Life Review is the academic backbone of the pro-life movement and has been publishing academic journals since This list represents only a tiny fraction of articles available on the New Advent website. For a more complete list, please see the full index for E or use the search box at the top of this page..
Easter - Includes information on the feast and customs Easter Controversy - The dispute regarding the proper time of observing Easter Eastern Churches - Eastern Churches depended originally on the.
Thus the government team may have to argue in favour of voluntary euthanasia as a principle: it would not have to put forward a specific legislative proposal to implement euthanasia except, perhaps, to define the motion or demonstrate that regulating euthanasia is practical.
Constructive argumentation or refutation may be done first, and.