Daily Archives: October 3, 2021

Debates about the moral dilemmas of euthanasia date back to ancient times. Many of the historical arguments used for and against the practice remain valid today. Indeed, any form of discussion on the subject often provokes emotive responses, both from members of the medical profession and the general public. For this reason alone, the issue will continue to be debated at all levels of society. There are, however, other factors that ensure euthanasia will remain a subject of major controversy within medical, legal and governmental bodies. Firstly, the act of euthanasia itself is illegal, yet in its passive form occurs on a daily basis in many of our hospitals (1). Secondly, medical advances have made it possible to artificially prolong the life of an increasing number of patients far beyond what was possible only a few years ago. Furthermore, we must all contend with the reality that financial constraints are an important consideration in modern health care provision. Finally, there is an ethical difficulty in interpreting the concept of a patient's right, or autonomy, versus the rights and duty of a doctor. Before attempting to answer the questions posed by these issues, it is important to have some accurate definitions of both euthanasia and of the concept of morality. According to the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, the precise definition of euthanasia is "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering" (2). The term can be further divided into voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. The former is said to occur if a competent patient makes an informed request for a life terminating event and the latter can be used if a patient does not give informed and specific consent for such treatment. It is the occurrence of involuntary euthanasia which forms one of the main arguments against legalisation. This is discussed in greater detail below. Euthanasia is frequently separated into active and passive forms. A number of authors consider these terms to be misleading and unhelpful. They are, however, used in the literature and in discussion and consequently should be understood. Active euthanasia takes place if deliberate steps are taken to end a patient's life; this would include administration of potassium containing compounds to induce cardiac arrest, a practice that is illegal in this country. Passive euthanasia is the withholding of treatments necessary for the continuance of life. Whether the administration of increasingly necessary, albeit toxic doses of opioid analgesia is regarded as active or passive euthanasia is a matter of moral interpretation, but in order to pacify doctors' consciences, it is usually regarded as a passive measure. Many people, therefore, regard it as an acceptable facet of good professional practice.

See the article here:

The euthanasia debate - PubMed

In this Article In this Article In this Article

Now that youve made the hard -- but humane -- choice to put your aging or ill pet to sleep, you may have questions. Will it hurt? Can I be with my pet during the process? Can it be done in my home?

Knowing the facts can help you and your family feel more at peace with what's going to happen.

It can be done at home or at your veterinarian's office. Not all vets will do this at your home so its important to check first. You may want to search for one that offers this service.

Make a time for your entire family to say goodbye. If you have children, explain what's happening in advance to help them prepare for the loss of their friend. There are lots of books to provide comfort and understanding for children, includingFred Rogers When a Pet Dies.

If you choose a vets office, bring your pets bed with you -- or a comfy blanket or pillow -- where they can rest. Most vets will provide a blanket, but one from home may be more soothing to your pet.

You may want to sit with your friend so you can pet and comfort them while the vet gives them the medicine.

Many vets give the pet a shot of sedative before the euthanasia drug. The vet will explain to you what they are doing and where they are giving the shot. Some vets only use a sedative if the pet is frightened or can't relax. The shot maysting a little bit, and the drug can have side effects.So talk to your vet about whether your pet should get it. If they are very sick and already quiet or havetrouble breathing, they may not need it.

The euthanasia medication most vets use is pentobarbital, a seizure medication. In large doses, it quickly renders the pet unconscious. It shuts down their heart and brain functions usually within one or two minutes. It is usually given by an IV injection in one of their legs.

When your pet passes, theireyes may not fully close. They may urinate or defecate. You may see themtwitch or take a final breath. This can be startling, but it's a normal part of the process. Your pet isn't in pain. Use of a sedative makes this step less likely.

In-home euthanasia can be easier if your dog has trouble moving or gets panicky at the vet's office.

Plus, if there are other animals at your house, they can see that their friend has passed. This is important for dogs -- as pack animals, they may get confused if they see another dog leave the house and not come back. Dogs often cry and search for a deceased animal after it's gone.

On the other hand, you may not want to associate your home with a beloved pet's death. It can be upsetting to children to see it happen, too. Or you may not want to be there when your pet passes.

If you want to bury your pet at home, be sure to check local, county, or state ordinances to make sure this is legal. You may also consider a pet cemetery.

The International Association of Pet Cemeteries and Crematories has a directory of pet cemeteries on its website.

Many people choose to have their pet cremated. Your city may have a company that will pick up your friend's remains from the vet's office or from your home. They'll cremate the pet and let you have time for a memorial service before if you want. Your vet may have a service they use. If not, contact your local or state government for guidance and regulations.

Putting your pet to sleep is the final step of a lifetime of care. You're making sure your friend is treated with compassion and dignity in their final moments.

SOURCES:

American Humane Association: "Euthanasia: Making the Decision."

The Humane Society of the United States: "Euthanasia Reference Manual."

Interview: Kristen Brauer, DVM, Tampa, Fla.

Interview: Bill DeBusk, Pet Angels, Pinellas Park, Fla.

The International Association of Pet Cemeteries and Crematories.

Pagination

See the rest here:

What Happens During Euthanasia? What to Expect When You ...

VATICANPope Francis decried abortion and euthanasia in a recent speech in which he said that todays throwaway culture leads to the killing of children and discarding of the elderly.

There is the discarding of children that we do not want to welcome with the law of abortion that sends them to the dispatcher and kills them directly. And today this has become a normal method, a practice that is very ugly. It is really murder, Pope Francis said on September 27.

In a live-streamed address to members of the Pontifical Academy for Life, the pope said that to understand what abortion is, it helps to pose two questions.

Is it right to eliminate, to take a human life to solve a problem? Is it right to hire a hitman to solve a problem? Thats what abortion is, the pope commented.

Pope Francis said that the elderly today were also viewed as waste material and of no use in todays throwaway culture.

But they are wisdom. They are the roots of wisdom of our civilization, and this civilization discards them, he said.

Yes, in many parts there is also the law of hidden euthanasia, as I call it. It is the one that makes people say: Medications are expensive, only half of them are needed, and this means shortening the life of the elderly.

The pope added that both abortion and euthanasia deny hope by negating the hope of children who bring us the life that keeps us going and the hope that is in the roots that the elderly give us.

Pope Francis underlined that this was not a path for Catholic universities or hospitals to follow.

This is a road on which we cannot go: the road of discarding, he said.

The speech marked the second time in September that Pope Francis has spoken out strongly about abortion.

During a news conference on his return flight from Slovakia on September 15, the pope repeatedly said that abortion is murder and compared the acceptance of abortion to accepting daily murder.

The Pontifical Academy for Life was founded by Pope John Paul II in 1994. It is dedicated to promoting the Churchs consistent life ethic.

This week, the academy is holding its plenary assembly in Rome, focused on the pandemic, bioethics, and the future of public health.

I entrust to the Virgin Mary the work of this assembly and also the whole of your activity as an Academy for the defense and promotion of life, Pope Francis said in his speech in the Vaticans Clementine Hall. Courtney Mares/Catholic News Agency via CBCP News

Image courtesy of Vatican Media

More:

Pope slams abortion and euthanasia as treating human life like 'waste' | Catholic News Agency via CBCP News - Business Mirror

Right, Yeah, but Uh huh Mhm Yeah.

Oklahoma group flies shelter pets at risk of euthanasia to Oregon to find forever homes

Updated: 1:05 PM CDT Sep 26, 2021

About 100 animals from Oklahoma are now in Oregon, hoping to find their forever homes.The group Fetch Fido a Flight undertook a major mission early Saturday morning by sending shelter pets at risk of euthanasia to Oregon, where there's a need for adoptable pets.Watch the video player above for more.

About 100 animals from Oklahoma are now in Oregon, hoping to find their forever homes.

The group Fetch Fido a Flight undertook a major mission early Saturday morning by sending shelter pets at risk of euthanasia to Oregon, where there's a need for adoptable pets.

Watch the video player above for more.

Read the original:

Oklahoma group flies shelter pets at risk of euthanasia to Oregon to find forever homes - KOCO Oklahoma City

Facebook

San Salvador (Agenzia Fides) - The Archbishop of San Salvador, Jos Luis Escobar Alas, disapproved last Sunday, September 26, of the constitutional reform proposals in which reference is made to abortion and euthanasia. "It is sad that they are trying to present to the Assembly a project that follows the patterns, which we know well, of an international agenda promoted by the UN and other international organizations, to impose abortion on us, the legalization of abortion, which they do not even call that but 'reproductive health' or 'interruption of the gestational process', and other things like that that have been invented to confuse people", said Mgr. Escobar Alas. The Archbishop assured that politicians are aware that "the political Constitution has flaws", such as the protection of illicit enrichment, the negation of "participatory democracy", which is ordered, according to the Archbishop's analysis, to representation "by the only vehicle that are political parties", and the protection of civil servants. The Church is confident, continued Archbishop Escobar Alas, that President Bukele will keep his word, given that on September 17, he pledged not to accept reforms that support abortion and euthanasia. "I have decided, so that there is no doubts, not to propose any kind of reform to any article that has to do with the right to life (from the moment of conception), to marriage or euthanasia", Nayib Bukele, President of El Salvador, posted on his social networks. The Archbishop hopes that this commitment and this decision of the President will materialize, otherwise it would be "a great failure". Constitutional reforms can be introduced on the basis of Article 248 of the Constitution itself, which states that these reforms must be approved by the Legislative Assembly with 43 votes (half plus one of the deputies). For this reform to be implemented, it must be ratified by the next Legislative Assembly, with the vote of two thirds of the deputies, or 56 votes, and the reform can be proposed by at least 10 deputies. (CE) (Agenzia Fides, 29/9/2021)

See more here:

AMERICA/EL SALVADOR - Archbishop Escobar Alas: no to constitutional reform according to an international project on abortion and euthanasia - Agenzia...

Belgium has no age limit for its euthanasia. Now, a letter published in a British Medical Journal publication reports that 10 percent of babies who died from 2016 to 2017 in Flanders up to age one were given drugs by their own doctors with an explicit life-shortening intention. In other words, they were euthanized, a.k.a., infanticide. From the study:

While decisions to withdraw life- prolonging treatment are most prevalent, the proportion of infants dying after administration of medication with an explicit life-shortening intention is striking.

Ill say! Infanticide has, until pretty recently, been considered a profound human-rights abuse.

It would appear that these babies were killed because they did not die right after birth:

Withholding treatment is more prevalent in infants dying in the first week of life (18%) and infants dying due to pregnancy complications with repercussions on fetal health (23%). Medication with explicit life-shortening intention is more prevalent in infants dying between 7 and 27 days (26%) and infants dying of disorders acquired after birth (26%).

Instead of demanding immediate action to stop these homicides, the authors suggest that a framework be considered to permit infanticide under more controlled conditions. But there could also be a downside to binding regulation:

However, the incidence rate [with the Netherlands] raises a two-sided argument: increased evaluation and monitoring of the practice [infanticide] can regulate and guide an ethically laden practice, yet it could limit neonatologists in making decisions they think are justified and in the best interest of the child.

Infanticide cannot be ethical medical practice, by definition. Good grief!

The moral of the tale? There is no such thing as a little euthanasia. Granting doctors (and, increasingly, nurses) a license to kill eventually corrupts medicine from the beginning of life to the far reaches of old age. Those with eyes to see, let them see.

See original here:

Doctors Kill 10 Percent of All Babies Who Die in Flanders - National Review

Rhodes Colleges philosophy department hosted a conversation with controversial bioethicist Peter Singer Wednesday, as planned, despite opposition to the event from faculty members from several other programs.

Singer has consistentlyarguedthat parents should have the right to choose euthanasia for their severelydisabled infants.

Prior to the virtual event, billed as a talk on pandemic ethics, the department of anthropology and sociology and the Africana studies program sent an open letter to the campus expressing deepest dismay that Singer would be welcomed, along with concern that the event could worsen the campus racial climate. The letter cited Singers longstanding advancement of philosophical arguments that presume the inferiority of many disabled lives. The creation of a hierarchy of lives as a justification for the allocation or denial of limited resources (whether pleasure, medical care, insurance, etc.) is a logic that has a long and violent history, and one that underlies eugenicist arguments, the letter also said.

The faculty letter further questioned why Singers talk included no disability scholars, given that COVID-19 is one of the most profound disability rights issues of our lifetimes.

A group of Rhodes historians sent the campus a similar letter of its own, saying, Hypothetical philosophies on morality cause real violence, and that Singers blatant inhumanity has no place in serious academic exchange here at Rhodes.

While Singer's thoughts on disability invite criticism, more of his work is focused on what he calls animal liberation,and onglobal poverty. Singer, a vegetarian, has previously warned that human's treatment of animals, especially livestock,makes pandemics more likely.He's also advocated for equitable vaccine distribution around the globe.

In response to various calls to cancel or alter the format of the event, Rhodes said in a statement that our institutions spirit of supporting expressive speech does not prohibit Professor Singers participation in this virtual panel. At the same time, our communitys values compel us to denounce some of the views he has expressed repeatedly over years through various addresses, writings, and media interviews.

The statement included a series of affirmations, including the strong belief in an inclusive, diverse, equitable, and accessible community -- as outlined in the colleges IDEAS framework -- one in which the worth and dignity of all persons is championed and supported.

Rebecca Tuvel, chair of philosophy at Rhodes, responded via email to some initial criticism of the event, according to the philosophy blog Daily Nous.

Serious intellectual exchange about matters of significance cannot avoid sometimes causing anger, offense, and pain and no one should be cavalier about that fact. It is not clear to us, however, what follows from our colleagues understandable expression of disturbance at some of Professor Singers views, Tuvel wrote. Do those views disqualify Singer from participating in the exchange of ideas that ought to occur at a liberal arts college? If that is the conclusion, we respectfully disagree, for its premise is that ideas that cause anger and dismay ought not, for that reason, be part of the exchange and that premise, we think, is incompatible with our mission to teach students how to engage in productive dialogue even, and indeed especially, with thinkers with whom they vehemently disagree.

A speak-out in support of people with disabilities took place earlier Wednesday at Rhodes, according to Daily Nous.

Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, told Inside Higher Ed via email that its disappointing these Rhodes faculty members place so little value on the role of a university education in challenging students to think about some of the underlying presuppositions of positions they hold, that they seek to prevent the expression of views with which they disagree.

He continued, Clearly, these faculty have not thought very deeply about these questions. They say that they object to my advocacy of allowing parents to choose euthanasia for severely disabled newborn infants (as they may do in the Netherlands, for example, in accordance with the Groningen Protocol). They say that this is eugenicist and denies the very humanity of people with disabilities. I challenge these faculty to explain to their students and the wider public their position on abortion following prenatal diagnosis that indicates a serious disability, or on allowing parents to choose to withdraw life-support from severely disabled infants in neonatal intensive care units, knowing that the infants will then die.

Singer asked if his faculty critics would consider such choices to be similarly offensive. Would they also argue that speakers who defend these choices should not be heard at Rhodes? If not, how do they distinguish the attitudes implied by these choices from those that I have expressed?

With philosophers Francesca Minerva and Jeff McMahan, Singer recently launched the Journal of Controversial Ideas, an open-access publication that allows scholars to publish under a psuedonym if they so choose.

Here is the original post:

Rhodes sticks with invitation to Peter Singer - Inside Higher Ed

What impact does legalisation of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have on a countrys suicide rate? This question was explored at the symposium Voluntary Assisted Dying and Suicide Prevention through a presentation by Professor David Albert Jones, Director of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre in Oxford and Professor of Bioethics at St Marys University, Twickenham, with a response from Professor David Kissane, from the University of Notre Dame Australia. The event was moderated by Associate Professor Megan Best (The University of Notre Dame Australia).

The symposium was hosted by the Bioethics and Healthcare Ethics program of the Institute for Ethics & Society as part of a research initiative addressing ethics at the end of life. The timeliness of this event was reflected in the attendance, the symposium drawing 175 registrations comprising an international audience.

The full impact on a society when euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are legalised is only gradually becoming clear, said A/Prof Best. We need to understand the risks that such laws hold for vulnerable members of our community, and Notre Dame Australia is well placed to facilitate this.

View original post here:

Voluntary assisted dying and suicide prevention - Mirage News

Addressing participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life on Monday, 27 September, Pope Francis spoke against the throwaway culture that allows the murder of children through abortion and a hidden euthanasia against the elderly that limits expensive medicine offered to them. The following is a translation of the Holy Fathers words which he shared in Italian in the Clementine Hall.

Dear sisters and dear brothers,

I am happy to be able to meet you on the occasion of your General Assembly and I thank Msgr Paglia for his words. I extend a greeting also to the many Academics who are connected.

The theme you have chosen for these three days of workshops is particularly timely: that of public health in the horizon of globalization. Indeed, the crisis of the pandemic has made both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor reverberate even more strongly (Enc. Laudato Si, 49). We cannot remain deaf before this dual cry. We have to listen to it well! And it is what you are setting out to do.

Examination of the numerous and grave issues that have emerged in the last two years is not an easy task. On the one hand we are worn out by the Covid-19 pandemic and by the inflation of issues that have been raised: we almost do not want to hear about it any more and we hurry on to other topics. However, on the other hand, it is essential to reflect calmly in order to examine in depth what has happened and to glimpse the path towards a better future for all. Truly, even worse than this crisis is the tragedy of squandering it (Pentecost homily, 31 May 2020). And we know that we do not emerge from a crisis the same: we will either emerge better or we will emerge worse. But not the same. The choice is in our hands. And I repeat, even worse than this crisis is the tragedy of squandering it. I encourage you in this effort. And I think the dynamic of discernment in which your meeting is taking place is wise and timely: first and foremost, listening attentively to the situation in order to foster a true and proper conversion and identify concrete decisions to emerge from the crisis, better.

The reflection that you have undertaken in recent years on global bioethics is revealing itself to be precious. I had encouraged you in this perspective with the letter Humana communitas on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of your Academy. The horizon of public health in fact offers the possibility to focus on important aspects for the coexistence of the human family and to strengthen the fabric of social friendship. These are central themes in the Encyclical Fratelli Tutti (cf. Chapter 6).

The crisis of the pandemic has highlighted the depth of the interdependence both among ourselves and between the human family and our common home (cf. Laudato Si, 86; 164). Our societies, especially in the West, have had the tendency to forget this interconnection. And the bitter consequences are before our eyes. In this epochal change it is thus urgent to invert this noxious tendency and it is possible to do so through the synergy among different disciplines. Knowledge of biology and hygiene is needed, as well as of medicine and epidemiology, but also of economy and sociology, anthropology and ecology. In addition to understanding the phenomena, it is a matter of identifying technological, political and ethical criteria of action with regards to health systems, the family, employment and the environment.

This outlook is particularly important in the health field because health and sickness are determined not only by processes of nature but also by social life. Moreover, it is not enough for a problem to be serious for it to come to peoples attention and thus be addressed. Many very serious problems are ignored due to lack of an adequate commitment. Let us think of the devastating impact of certain diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis: the precariousness of health and hygiene conditions cause millions of avoidable deaths in the world every year. If we compare this reality with the concern caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, we can see how the perception of the seriousness of the problem and the corresponding mobilization of energies and resources are very different.

Of course, taking all measures to stem and defeat Covid-19 on a global level is the right thing to do, but this moment in history in which our health is being threatened directly should make us aware of what it means to be vulnerable and to live daily in insecurity. We could thus assume the responsibility also for the grave conditions in which others live and of which we have so far been little or not interested at all. We could thus learn not to project our priorities onto populations who live on other continents, where other needs are more urgent; where, for example, not only vaccines but also drinking water and daily bread are in short supply. I dont know if one should laugh or cry, cry sometimes, when we hear government leaders or community leaders advise slum dwellers to sanitize themselves several times a day with soap and water. But, my dear, you have never been to a slum: there is no water there, they know nothing about soap. No, do not leave your home!: but there the whole neighbourhood is home, because they live... Please, let us take care of this reality, even when we reflect on health. Let us welcome then, any commitment to a fair and universal distribution of vaccines this is important , but taking into account the broader field which demands the same criteria of justice for health needs and for the promotion of life.

Looking at health in its multiple dimensions at a global level helps to understand and take on with responsibility the interconnection between the phenomena. In this way, we can better observe how even the conditions of life that are the result of political, social and environmental choices have an impact on the health of human beings. If we examine in different countries and in different social groups the hope of life and of a healthy life we discover great inequalities. They depend on variables such as the amount of wages, the educational level, the neighbourhood in which one resides even though it is in the same city. We state that life and health are values that are equally fundamental for all, based on the inalienable dignity of the human person. But, if this statement is not followed by an adequate commitment to overcome inequality, we are de facto accepting the painful reality that not all lives are equal and health is not protected for everyone in the same way. And here, I would like to repeat my concern: that there always be a free healthcare system. May the countries which have them, not lose them, for example Italy and others, which have a good free healthcare system: do not lose it because otherwise we would end up with only members of the population who can afford it, having the right to healthcare and the others not. And this is a very big challenge. This helps overcome inequality.

Therefore, international initiatives are to be supported I am thinking for example of those recently promoted by the G20 aimed at creating a global governance for the health of all the inhabitants of the planet, that is, a set of clear rules agreed at the international level that respect human dignity. In fact, the risk of new pandemics will continue to be a threat also for the future.

The Pontifical Academy for Life can also offer a precious contribution in this sense, seeing itself as a travelling companion of other international organizations committed to this same aim. With regards to this, it is important to participate in shared initiatives and in the appropriate manner, to the public debate. Naturally, this requires that, without watering down contents, attempts be made to communicate them in a language that is suitable and topics that can be understood in the current social context, so that the Christian anthropological proposition, inspired by Revelation, can also help todays men and women to rediscover the primacy of the right to life from conception to its natural end (Discourse to participants in the Meeting sponsored by the Science and Life Association, 30 May 2015).

Here too, I would like to mention that we are victims of the throwaway culture. In his presentation, Msgr Paglia referred to something: but there is the throwing away of children that we do not want to welcome, with that abortion law that sends them back to their sender and kills them. Today this has become a normal thing, a habit that is very bad; it is truly murder. In order to truly grasp this, perhaps asking ourselves two questions may help: is it right to eliminate, to end a human life to solve a problem? Is it right to hire a hitman to solve a problem? Abortion is this. And then on the other side, are the elderly: the elderly who are also a bit of throwaway material because they are not needed.... But they are the wisdom, they are the roots of the wisdom of our civilization, and this civilization discards them! Yes, in many places there is a hidden law on euthanasia, as I call it. It is the one that makes us say: medicines are expensive, only half should be given. This means shortening the lives of the elderly. In so doing, we deny hope, the hope of the children who bring us the life that makes us go forward, and the hope that is in the roots that the elderly give us. Instead, we discard both. And then the everyday throwing away, that life is thrown away. Let us be careful about this throwaway culture. It is not a problem of one law or another. It is a problem of throwing away. And on this point, you academics, the Catholic universities and also Catholic hospitals cannot allow themselves to go this way. This is a path which we cannot take: the throw away path.

Therefore, the work that your Academy has undertaken in recent years on the impact of new technologies on human life and more specifically on algorethics should be looked upon favourably in such a way that science may truly be at the service of mankind, and not mankind at the service of science. (ibid). I encourage in this regard, the work of the fledgling foundation, renAIssance, for the spreading and deepening of the Rome Call for AI Ethics which I strongly hope many will join.

Lastly, I wish to thank you for the commitment and contribution that the Academy has provided by actively participating in the Vatican Covid Commission. Thank you for this. It is beautiful to see cooperation within the Roman Curia in the fulfilment of a shared project. We have to increasingly develop these processes brought forth together, in which I know many of you have participated, urging greater attention to vulnerable people such as the elderly, the disabled and the younger ones.

With these feelings of gratitude, I entrust the work of this Assembly and also your activity as an Academy on the whole in favour of the defence and promotion of life, to the Virgin Mary. I offer my heartfelt blessing to each of you and your loved ones. And I ask you please to pray for me because I need it. Thank you.

Excerpt from:

To discard the unborn child and the elderly is to deny hope - L'Osservatore Romano - L'Osservatore Romano