There are a few different types of euthanasia and they are all performed for different reasons. However, in many states, it is not legal. There have been many controversial debates on this topic including The National Council of Hospices and Specialist Palliative Care Services (NCHSPCS). It was recommended that nurses, doctors, and students were to receive palliative care education and reach a certain expertise level as an alternative to euthanasia (Ledger 7). Euthanasia, meaning “good death” from Greek eu and thanatos, is a gentle and intentional death that is performed in a medical setting or done medically, not always legally, but it is a peaceful way to end the suffering of the terminally ill (Griffen 317).
Euthanasia is different from …show more content…
“”Causing death,” namely killing another human person, is usually prohibited by the criminal law of homicide” (Griffen 317). Active euthanasia is illegal in most Western nations, except in the Netherlands and in Belgium (Griffen 317). Passive euthanasia does not have the same criminal sanction, although some nations do classify it as the crime of not helping someone in danger (Griffen 317). “In practice, some doctors who are prosecuted for euthanasia insist that they were just providing pain relief. Critics have argued that the moral and medical distinction between foreseeing and intending death is too slim a need to support the legal difference” (Griffen 318). People who support euthanasia and the right to die argue that accelerating the death of the terminally ill patients who request death is not unjustified killing but is instead encourages human dignity and patient autonomy (Griffen 318). In 1984, the Dutch Supreme Court realized a defense against murder for doctors who commit active, voluntary euthanasia (Griffen 318). In 2001, the Netherlands publicized substantive standards to guide the legal practice of euthanasia in cases where specific safeguards were met (Griffen 318). In the United States and in many other countries, it is legal to terminate life-sustaining treatment (Wolf 1). In 1990, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health that …show more content…
“According to Cassell1 human suffering is “a state of severe distress associated with events that threaten the intactness of the person.” It occurs when a person perceives the impending destruction of themselves and is associated with a loss of hope. It affects the individual’s physical, psychological and spiritual well being” (Ledger 1). Reich2 recognized the harmful consequences of suffering on a person, but he argued that suffering was associated with anguish rather than with distress (Ledger 1). Reich stated that there was a difference between suffering and experiencing pain (Ledger 1). Reich also was the one to realize that acute and chronic pain could cause physical, mental, or emotional distress (Ledger 1). He argued that this distress was not necessarily related to physical pain, but could be due to mental agony caused by a number of factors including feelings of injustice, powerlessness, victimisation, dependency, and fear of obliteration following death (Ledger 1). “In 1988, Wilkinson41 predicted, “With the rise of the hospice movement and the availability of its knowledge and experience in the control of distressing symptoms in terminal disease, there is no longer any real indication for euthanasia”” (Ledger 4). Nine years later, Saunders42 confirmed that patients who wanted to be left to die on admission, usually, after effective symptom control, were glad that their request was not accepted (Ledger 4). In 1870, Samuel
Euthanasia is different from …show more content…
“”Causing death,” namely killing another human person, is usually prohibited by the criminal law of homicide” (Griffen 317). Active euthanasia is illegal in most Western nations, except in the Netherlands and in Belgium (Griffen 317). Passive euthanasia does not have the same criminal sanction, although some nations do classify it as the crime of not helping someone in danger (Griffen 317). “In practice, some doctors who are prosecuted for euthanasia insist that they were just providing pain relief. Critics have argued that the moral and medical distinction between foreseeing and intending death is too slim a need to support the legal difference” (Griffen 318). People who support euthanasia and the right to die argue that accelerating the death of the terminally ill patients who request death is not unjustified killing but is instead encourages human dignity and patient autonomy (Griffen 318). In 1984, the Dutch Supreme Court realized a defense against murder for doctors who commit active, voluntary euthanasia (Griffen 318). In 2001, the Netherlands publicized substantive standards to guide the legal practice of euthanasia in cases where specific safeguards were met (Griffen 318). In the United States and in many other countries, it is legal to terminate life-sustaining treatment (Wolf 1). In 1990, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health that …show more content…
“According to Cassell1 human suffering is “a state of severe distress associated with events that threaten the intactness of the person.” It occurs when a person perceives the impending destruction of themselves and is associated with a loss of hope. It affects the individual’s physical, psychological and spiritual well being” (Ledger 1). Reich2 recognized the harmful consequences of suffering on a person, but he argued that suffering was associated with anguish rather than with distress (Ledger 1). Reich stated that there was a difference between suffering and experiencing pain (Ledger 1). Reich also was the one to realize that acute and chronic pain could cause physical, mental, or emotional distress (Ledger 1). He argued that this distress was not necessarily related to physical pain, but could be due to mental agony caused by a number of factors including feelings of injustice, powerlessness, victimisation, dependency, and fear of obliteration following death (Ledger 1). “In 1988, Wilkinson41 predicted, “With the rise of the hospice movement and the availability of its knowledge and experience in the control of distressing symptoms in terminal disease, there is no longer any real indication for euthanasia”” (Ledger 4). Nine years later, Saunders42 confirmed that patients who wanted to be left to die on admission, usually, after effective symptom control, were glad that their request was not accepted (Ledger 4). In 1870, Samuel