Category Archives: Euthanasia

COMMERCIAL BREAK

SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

Noor Jehan, an ailing elephant in Pakistan's Karachi Zoo succumbed to critical injuries she received recently, but her death has revived criticisms over the dire state of the nation's zoos. Experts, vets and animal welfare advocates had tried to save the animal, but in vain.

Noor Jehan's death at the age of 17 is heartbreaking as she was an African elephant whose average lifespan is 60 to 70 years. She had many more years to live.

She recently underwent emergency treatment for a tumour which had crippled her back legs. She became trapped in her enclosure's pool during her recovery period.

The animal charity welfare stated that zoo workers hauled out the 3.5-tonne pachyderm but she could not stand and lay stricken for nine days, "a life-threatening situation for elephants". The statement further noted that experts were even considering euthanasia but before a decision was taken "she succumbed to her critical condition".

Four Paws, an international animal welfare organisation, said, "After fighting for 9 days, she succumbed to her critical condition. She spent too long lying on the ground a life-threatening situation for elephants." The Austria-based animal organisation had been advising local and international veterinarians on her treatment.

The animal welfare also tweeted that Jehan's story was a "reminder of the suffering that captive wild animals endure in Pakistan and around the world. We hope that the authorities in Pakistan will take this as an example and do better for captive wild animals in the future."

Viral images of Noor Jehan helplessly lying on her side when she was unwell were heartbreaking and also led to widespread criticism of the zoo authorities. It also led to reports in the local media that Karachi Zoo may be shut down permanently. Four Paws said it may be a watershed moment for the well-being of wild animals in captivity in the South Asian nation.

The campaigners pushing to close the wildlife show in southern Karachi city highlighted Noor Jehan's misery as evidence of Pakistani zoos' disregard for animal welfare.

Media reports of several deadly incidents underline the poor state of zoos across the country. Noor Jehan's incident is not the first one: two lions died of asphyxiation in recent years in Pakistan when keepers used smoke to try to lure them out of their den. Several white tiger cubs have also died.

A report in 2019 claimed that some 206 birds and 76 other animals died in 2017, while 122 birds and 45 other animals died in 2018. Multiple deaths were also reported in the Peshawar Zoo since it was inaugurated in February 2018.

Earlier this month, the director of the Karachi Zoo was fired due to reports of neglect. A court ordered the closure of the Islamabad Zoo in 2020 - the same zoo where the elephant Kaavan was kept.

In March, Karachi Zoo's Golden Tabby tiger died at 21 and according to sources, the animal had been ill for a long time and apparently failed to receive proper care.

During the entire Noor Jehan saga, Four Paws veterinarian Amir Khalil said that Karachi Zoo did not meet international standards. He also urged that Madhubala, the healthy elephant remaining at the zoo, be relocated to avert a second tragedy. The vet urged to provide Madhubala with a more species-appropriate place and give her a chance at a better life.

A report published last month mentioned that zoos across the nation suffer maintenance issues. Reports have emerged of food and staff shortages at a zoo in Karachi city. The animals kept there are said to be malnourished and living in cramped enclosures.

Pakistan is currently in the grip of an extreme economic crisis, burdened with external debt totaling more than $115 billion, surging inflation, and weak development prospects, among other issues.

The dire state of the economy hasan impact not only on humans but also on animals as reports of animal food shortages at Karachi Zoo sparked outrage on social media platforms and among animal rights advocates.

Reports noted that the zoo encompasses 43 acres of land and houses 750 animals and birds in 117 separate cages. Tipu Sharif, an animal rescuer who visited Karachi Zoo multiple times, described the zoo habitat as "unsatisfactory". The zoo was founded during British colonial authority.

Sharif told Deutsche Welle: "They are malnourished. The management does not have adequate resources to feed them and the food that is supplied to the animals is of not excellent quality. The animals don't have the right kind of space for the type of animals that they are."

The DW report also mentioned that the zoo also appears to be facing a staff shortage. A zoo employee told Germany's state-owned broadcaster on the condition of anonymity that the zoo has only 14 keepers to feed animals, take care of them and clean cages.

Officials at the zoo say the animals are suffering because there are no adequate funds. A report by the news agency PTI quoted one official as saying: "What can we do without a proper budget? The money generated is not enough to feed all the animals properly and keep the zoo neat and clean."

Several other reports have also highlighted the cruelty shown by the zookeepers and the administration of the Karachi Zoo towards the animals.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

The rest is here:

Explained: Dying animals, lack of funds - distressing state of Pakistan zoos - WION

The horror stories continue to pour in. Children, usually from poor families or in rural areas, are being hunted and killed by homeless dogs. State and central governments seem to be helpless to ensure the safety of people on the streets, from what has clearly become a human rights issue and a public health crisis.

The main culprit behind this is the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules that were first introduced in 2001by the Ministry of Culture, and now replaced by even more absurd ABC Rules, 2023. This policy, despite the protestation by those who promoted it, is completely lacking in both science as well as logic.

The policy aims to implement a technique called catch-neuter-vaccinate-release to control populations of free-ranging dogs and cats.

However, despite 20 years of this policy and hundreds of crores of rupees being spent, dog population in India is now more than 65 million. Proponents of this method aver that the only reason it did not work is because it has not been implemented properly. But what they fail to understand is that itis unimplementable from a scientific, logistic and economic perspective.

The ABC programme does not seem to have any benchmarks or targets. For example, before the start of the programme, a municipal corporation would be required to estimate the base population of dogs to be sterilised. It would then need to set targets for population reduction within a reasonable time period, say five years, and then calculate how many would need to be sterilised to achieve this objective.

However,municipalitiesset targets for sterilisation based on budgets and available facilities.In most cases, only a small fraction of the population is sterilised, and in many cases, the programme itself is discontinued after a few cycles.

Dogs are incredibly fecund animals, and reproduce at a high rate if enough resources are available.Both field and modelling studies show that nearly 90% of the dog population needs to be sterilised over a short period of time to achieve a sustained population reduction over a 10-15-year period. This minor detail is conveniently skipped by most proponents of the ABC programme.

The other major problem is thatthe ABC Rules, 2023, bizarrely require people to feed dogs, wherever they may be.The concept of feeding animals in India is associated either with religious beliefs, a false sense of compassion, or at its egregious worst, a wilful misinterpretation of Article 51G of the Constitutional duty to be compassionate to all living beings.Most people either throw a few biscuits on the roadside or leave leftover food outside their houses, but some people, with almost religious fervour, go out of their way to feed dozens of dogs.

A study conducted in Bengaluru found that roadside eateries and a few households that fed dogs were the main factors responsible for high dog densities. This creates huge conflict between feeders and ordinary residents who have to deal with packs of dogs roaming around their neighbourhoods. Although some justify feeding as a way of making dogs friendly and easier to catch for sterilisation, the same study found that, in fact, very few people actually sterilise or vaccinate dogs that they feed.

Reckless feeding tends to congregate dogs and leads to pack formation, territoriality and aggression even amongst sterilised dogs. This behaviour is usually triggered at night. At its very worst, this frenzied hunting behaviour can end up causing severe injury or even death due to mauling, especially of small children and the elderly.Another study also found that in urban areas, dogs were the second leading cause of road accidents.

Despite all these negatives, why does the government persist with a policy that is cruel at multiple levels? It is cruel to dogs, since homeless life on the streets is not easy, with accidents, disease, wanton cruelty and constant fear being their normal state. It is cruel to ordinary citizens, depriving people of their right to life, free movement, and a safe environment. In many areas, dogs are also leading causes of harm to wildlife, and cause immense loss of biodiversity.

The unkindest cut of all is that the ABC Rules ban the euthanasia of rabid animals, making India the only country in the world to follow such a cruel practice.The rules require rabid dogs to die a natural death.

However, it does not have to be this way. Solving this problem requires a multi-pronged approach, and some difficult decisions.Strict pet ownership laws, a ban on irresponsible feeding in public places, and encouraging adoption and long-term sheltering of homeless dogs will result in win-win solutions.Since euthanasia is so unacceptable to dog lovers, let them support the permanent sheltering of animals.

Unlike the ABC programme, the expenses incurred in setting up shelters will at least result in removing dogs from streets permanently, whereas the ABC Rules require that the dogs be released back into the same area, where they can be a nuisance in perpetuity. The same people who feed dogs on the streets can supervise shelters to ensure that they are well maintained and also feed them there.

If the greatness of our nation and its moral progress is to be judged by how we treat animals, then surely we should not be making the worst enemies of our best friends.

(Abi T. Vanak is a leading authority on the ecology of dogs, and a long-time advocate for true dog welfare. He is currently the Director for the Centre for Policy Design, ATREE, Bengaluru)

Continued here:

Stray dog population control is dogged by bad science - The Hindu

Dear Editor,

The concept of Euthanasia has been a controversial topic since its inception. The word Euthanasia is derived from Greek, Eu meaning good and thanatos meaning death, put together it means good death. Euthanasia is defined as the hastening of death of a patient to prevent further sufferings. Active euthanasia refers to the physician deliberate act, usually the administration of lethal drugs, to end an incurably or terminally ill patients life. Passive euthanasia refers to withholding or withdrawing treatment which is necessary for maintaining life. There are three types of active euthanasia, in relation to giving consent for euthanasia, namely voluntary euthanasia at patient request, nonvoluntary without patient consent, involuntary euthanasia patient is not in a position to give consent. [1]

Other terminology like assisted suicide and physician-assisted suicide are not synonyms of euthanasia. [1] Do not resuscitate (DNR) order means the attending doctor is not required to resuscitate a patient if their heart stops and is designed to prevent unnecessary suffering. Even though DNR is considered as passive euthanasia, it is practiced in most part of the world without much legal issues. [2]

Common conditions which make patients to seek euthanasia are terminally ill cancer patients, acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and other terminally ill conditions where there is no active treatment. Factors which are responsible for decision making are classified into physical and psychological factors. Physical conditions that affect the quality of life in these patients are unbearable pain, nausea and vomiting, difficulty in swallowing, paralysis, incontinence, and breathlessness. Psychological factors include depression, feeling a burden, fearing loss of control or dignity, or dislike of being dependent. [2] But some argues that suicidal ideation and inadequate palliative care might also be the underlying reasons for seeking euthanasia. [3]

Passive euthanasia is generally accepted worldwide. Active involuntary euthanasia is illegal in almost all countries. Practicing active voluntary euthanasia is illegal and considered as criminal homicide in most of the countries and will faces punishment up to imprisonment for 14 years. While active involuntary euthanasia is legal in countries such as Netherland, Belgium, and Luxembourg, assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland and the United States of Oregon, Washington, and Montana. [4]

Previously there was an age restriction for euthanasia in Belgium, but recently the country has passed a bill in the parliament which lifts ban on all age restriction on euthanasia. In Belgium alone, there are 1400 cases of euthanasia practiced. The concept of death tourism or euthanasia tourism is slowly increasing in which patients who want to seek euthanasia or other assisted suicide services will travel to countries where it is legalized to avail those services. Switzerland is known for death tourism, where every year patients primarily from British, German, and French travel there to end their lives. [5] In Netherland, euthanasia accounts for 2% of all deaths. [6]

Many activists against euthanasia feel that legalizing euthanasia will leads to slippery slope phenomenon which leads on to more number of nonvoluntary euthanasia. To conclude, strict standard guidelines should be formulated to practice euthanasia in countries where it is legalized, regulation of death tourism and other practices like mandatory reporting of all cases of euthanasia, consultation with psychiatrist, obtaining second opinion, improved hospice care have to be followed for standardization of euthanasia.

More here:

Euthanasia: Right to Die with Dignity - PMC - National Center for ...

RASKC is here for you. If you need to bring your pet to the shelter, simply start by filling out the form. We accept dog and cat surrenders by appointment for owners who live within RASKC's jurisdiction. To make an appointment, please first submit this form. A RASKC representative will contact you to gather more information about you and your pet. Due to large numbers of surrenders, it may be eight to ten weeks before a surrender appointment becomes available.

Note: Owner surrender appointments typically take about 30 to 45 minutes. Please be prepared to bring a valid photo ID and any veterinary records you may have for your animal.

RASKC schedules appointments for owner surrendered pets to ensure that we have enough resources available when each new pet arrives. This appointment allows our team a chance to sit down with you to gather more information and discuss what the best possible options are for you and your pet. Please be aware that it may be eight to ten weeks before an appointment is available.

We know saying goodbye to your pet is never easy. RASKC offers end-of-life services to pet owners within our jurisdiction. If your pet is licensed with King County, there is no charge for euthanasia services. For unlicensed pets, there is a $50 fee.

Whether we are able to accept more than one animal at a time may depend on the space we have available at that time. Please complete the Owner Surrender Form to receive a call from an intake specialist who can talk to you about your options.

If your pet has a litter of babies and you are able to rehome them on your own, we encourage you to review the above resources for rehoming. If you do decide to rehome on your own, you can find low cost spay and neuter locations through the ASPCA website.

If you are not able to rehome on your own, you are welcome to bring your litter to RASKC. Please complete the Owner Surrender Form and a RASKC representative will contact you.

Visit link:

Pet assistance program - King County

Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of a patient to limit the patients suffering. The patient in question would typically be terminally ill or experiencing great pain and suffering.

The word euthanasia itself comes from the Greek words eu (good) and thanatos (death). The idea is that instead of condemning someone to a slow, painful, or undignified death, euthanasia would allow the patient to experience a relatively good death.

Different practices fall under the label euthanasia. Here are some distinctions demarcating different versions.

Active euthanasia: killing a patient by active means, for example, injecting a patient with a lethal dose of a drug. Sometimes called aggressive euthanasia.

Passive euthanasia: intentionally letting a patient die by withholding artificial life support such as a ventilator or feeding tube. Some ethicists distinguish betweenwithholdinglife support andwithdrawinglife support (the patient is on life support but then removed from it).

Voluntary euthanasia: with the consent of the patient.

Involuntary euthanasia: without the consent of the patient, for example, if the patient is unconscious and his or her wishes are unknown.. Some ethicists distinguish between involuntary (against the patients wishes) and nonvoluntary (without the patients consent but wishes are unknown) forms.

Self-administered euthanasia: the patient administers the means of death.

Other-administered euthanasia: a person other than the patient administers the means of death.

Assisted: the patient administers the means of death but with the assistance of another person, such as a physician.

There are many possible combinations of the above types, and many types of euthanasia are morally controversial. Some types of euthanasia, such as assisted voluntary forms, are legal in some countries.

Mercy-killing:The term mercy-killing usually refers to active, involuntary or nonvoluntary, other-administered euthanasia. In other words, someone kills a patient without their explicit consent to end the patients suffering. Some ethicists think that

Physician-assisted suicide:The phrase physician-assisted suicide refers to active, voluntary, assisted euthanasia where a physician assists the patient. A physician provides the patient with a means, such as sufficient medication, for the patient to kill him or herself.

Some instances of euthanasia are relatively uncontroversial. Killing a patient against their will (involuntary, aggressive/active, other-administered), for instance, is almost universally condemned. During the late 1930s and early 1940s, in Germany, Adolf Hitler carried out a program to exterminate children with disabilities (with or without their parents permission) under the guise of improving the Aryan race and reducing costs to society. Everyone now thinks this kind of euthanasia in the service of a eugenics program was clearly morally wrong.

Advocates of active euthanasia typically argue that killing the patients in question is not worse than letting them die. Advocates of voluntary euthanasia often claim that patients should have the right to do what they want with their own lives. Advocates of mercy killing argue that for patients who are in vegetative states with no prospect of recovery, letting them die prevents future needless and futile treatment efforts. If they are suffering then killing them prevents further suffering. Advocates of physician-assisted suicide argue that a physician assisting a terminally ill or suffering patient is merely helping the patient who wishes to die with dignity.

Critics of the euthanasia typically argue that killing is always wrong, that nonvoluntary or involuntary euthanasia violates patient rights, or that physician-assisted suicide violates an obligation to do no harm.

Killing vs. letting die: There is dispute over whether killing a patient is really any worse than letting the patient die if both result in the same outcome.

Commonsense morality usually thinks that letting a person die is not as bad as killing a person. We sometimes condemn letting an innocent person die and sometimes not, but we always condemn killing an innocent person.

Consider different instances of letting die. One might claim that it is wrong to let our neighbor die of an accident if we could easily have saved his or her life by calling an ambulance. On the other hand, we let starving people in poor countries die without condemning ourselves for failing to save them, because we think they have no right to demand we prevent their deaths. But if someone killed a neighbor or starving people we would think that wrong.

Likewise, we would condemn a healthcare professional who kills a patient. But we might accept the healthcare professional who at patient and family request withholds artificial life support to allow a suffering, terminally ill patient to die.

The distinction between killing and letting die is controversial in healthcare because critics charge there is no proper moral basis for the distinction. They say that killing the above patient brings about the same end as letting the patient die. Others object to this and claim that the nature of the act of killing is different than letting die in ways that make it morally wrong.

Ordinary vs. extraordinary treatment: Ordinary medical treatment includes stopping bleeding, administering pain killers and antibiotics, and setting fractures. But using a mechanical ventilator to keep a patient breathing is sometimes considered extraordinary treatment or care. Some ethicists believe letting a patient die by withholding or withdrawing artificial treatment or care is acceptable but withholding or withdrawing ordinary treatment or care is not. This view is controversial. Some claim the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary treatment is artificial, contrived, vague, or constantly changing as technology progresses

Death intended vs. anticipated: Some ethicists believe that if a suffering, terminally-ill patient dies because of intentionally receiving pain-relieving medications, it makes a difference whether the death itself was intended or merely anticipated. If the death was intended it is wrong but if the death was anticipated it might be morally acceptable. This reasoning relies on the moral principle called the principle of double effect.

Excerpt from:

Euthanasia - MU School of Medicine

Opinion 1.1.1

At the heart of medicine lie relationships founded in a covenant of trust between patient and physician in which physicians commit themselves to responding to the needs and promoting the welfare of patients.

Preserving opportunity for physicians to act (or to refrain from acting) in accordance with the dictates of conscience is important for preserving the integrity of the medical profession as well as the integrity of the individual physician; Physicians freedom to act according to conscience is not unlimited; They are expected to provide care in emergencies, honor patients informed decisions to refuse life-sustaining treatment, respect basic civil liberties and not discriminate against patients on the basis of arbitrary characteristics.

Informed consent to medical treatment is fundamental in both ethics and law. Patients have the right to receive information and ask questions about recommended treatments so that they can make well-considered decisions about care.

Physicians should engage patients whose capacity is impaired in decisions involving their own care to the greatest extent possible, including when the patient has previously designated a surrogate to make decisions on his or her behalf.

When a terminally ill patient experiences severe pain or other distressing clinical symptoms that do not respond to aggressive, symptom-specific palliation, it can be appropriate to offer sedation to unconsciousness as an intervention of last resort.

Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physicians role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks. Instead of engaging in assisted suicide, physicians must respond to the needs of patients at the end of life.

Go here to read the rest:

Euthanasia | ama-coe - American Medical Association

Euthanasia (good death) is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relievepainandsuffering. It is also known as mercy killing. In many countries,there is a divisive public controversy over the moral, ethical, and legal issues of euthanasia.Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Euthanasia is also classified into active and passive Euthanasia.

Voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia can all be further divided into passive or active variants.

Historically, the euthanasia debate has tended to focus on a number of key concerns. According to euthanasia opponent Ezekiel Emanuel, proponents of euthanasia have presented four main arguments:

Emanuel argues that there are four major arguments presented by opponents of euthanasia:

Passive euthanasia is legal in India. On 7 March 2011, the Supreme Court of India legalised passive euthanasia by means of the withdrawal of life support to patients in a permanent vegetative state. The decision was made as part of the verdict in a case involving Aruna Shanbaug, who had been in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) for 42 years until her death in 2015.

In March 2011, the Supreme Court of India passed a historic judgement-law permitting Passive Euthanasia in the country. This judgment was passed in the wake of Pinki Viranis plea to the highest court in December 2009 under the Constitutional provision of Next Friend. Its a landmark law which places the power of choice in the hands of the individual, over government, medical or religious control which sees all suffering as destiny. The Supreme Court specified two irreversible conditions to permit Passive Euthanasia Law in its 2011 Law:

ClearIAS Video Classes (Recorded): The easiest way to cover the entire UPSC Prelims and Mains GS syllabus in the shortest time.

ClearIAS Prelims Test Series: The best Mock Exams you ever get for practice for UPSC Prelims.

ClearIAS Intelligent Elimination Techniques (IETs): 40 IETs to solve difficult MCQs using logic and common sense.

Yes. I love ClearIAS methods!

The same judgement-law also asked for the scrapping of 309, the code which penalises those who survive suicide-attempts. In December 2014, the Government of India declared its intention to do so.

However on 25 February 2014, a three-judge bench of Supreme Court of India had termed the judgment in the Aruna Shanbaug case to be inconsistent in itself and has referred the issue of euthanasia to its five-judge Constitution bench on a PIL filed by Common Cause, which case is the basis of the current debate. Then, the CJI referred to an earlier Constitution Bench judgment which, in the Gian Kaur case, did not express any binding view on the subject of euthanasia; rather it reiterated that the legislature would be the appropriate authority to bring change. Though that judgment said the right to live with dignity under Article 21 was inclusive of the right to die with dignity, it did not arrive at a conclusion on the validity of euthanasia, be it active or passive. So, the only judgment that holds the field with regard to euthanasia in India is the ruling in the Aruna Shanbaug case, which upholds the validity of passive euthanasia and lays down an elaborate procedure for executing the same on the wrong premise that the Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur had upheld the same, the CJI said.

OnDecember 23, 2014, Government of India endorsed and re-validated the Passive Euthanasia judgement-law in a Press Release, after stating in the Rajya Sabha as follows: that The Honble Supreme Court of India, while dismissing the plea for mercy killing in a particular case, laid down comprehensive guidelines to process cases relating to passive euthanasia. Thereafter, the matter of mercy killing was examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice and it has been decided that since the Honble Supreme Court has already laid down the guidelines, these should be followed and treated as law in such cases. At present, there is no legislation on this subject and the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court is binding on all.

The court rejected active euthanasia by means of lethal injection. In the absence of a law regulating euthanasia in India, the court stated that its decision becomes the law of the land until the Indian parliament enacts a suitable law. Active euthanasia, including the administration of lethal compounds for the purpose of ending life, is still illegal in India, and in most countries.

As India had no law about euthanasia, the Supreme Courts guidelines are law until and unless Parliament passes legislation. The following guidelines were laid down:

Recently, the issue was in the news, as the Govt. said it was open to making a law on the subject. The law commission too has proposed a legislation on passive euthanasia, it said. According to the Centre, the decision to come out with a bill was taken after considering the directives of the apex court, the law commissions 241st report and a private member bill introduced in Parliament in 2014. The Centre said that initially, a meeting was held under the chairmanship of B.P. Sharma, secretary in the health and family welfare ministry, on May 22, 2015, to examine the draft of The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill and the draft of The Euthanasia (Regulation) Bill.

This move to introduce a bill is a welcome step to clear the grey areas in Euthanasia debate.Students can also link to this issue while answering questions on:

Article by: Jishnu J Raju

Go here to read the rest:

Euthanasia - Arguments in Favour and Against - ClearIAS

Baton Rouge animal shelter overwhelmed, resorting to euthanasia: 'Please help us help them'  The Advocate

Read the rest here:

Baton Rouge animal shelter overwhelmed, resorting to euthanasia: 'Please help us help them' - The Advocate

1. Canadian religious leaders speak out as country set to allow euthanasia for mental illness  Fox News
2. Protect life until the end, archbishop tells health workers  The Catholic Register
3. Death on Demand | Gene Veith  Patheos
4. Health workers called to love, and possibly conscientious objection, archbishop says  The B.C. Catholic
5. Renu Bakshi: Calm before the storm upcoming death laws test Canadas woke values  Business in Vancouver
6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Continued here:

Canadian religious leaders speak out as country set to allow euthanasia for mental illness - Fox News

The idea that death should be merciful is not new. When a person is gravely wounded or terminally ill, when death is inevitable, and the suffering is so great that living no longer brings any joy to the person, it is understandable that he or she may wish to die. In Two Pioneers of Euthanasia Around 1800, Michael Stolberg cites accounts of people pulling on the legs of those who had been hanged, but had not yet died, to hasten their deaths. He mentions also Apologie, the autobiography of a French surgeon named Ambroise Par who happened upon three gravely wounded soldiers. An uninjured soldier asked the surgeon if they would live, to which he responded they would not. The uninjured soldier proceeded to slit their throats.

The invention and widespread use of morphine in the 19th century to treat, and then to kill, pain led to the belief that a less painful dying process was possible, Giza Lopes writes in her book Dying With Dignity: A Legal Approach to Assisted Death. In the mid-19th century, surgeons began using chloroform, which had fewer negative side effects than morphine, and which knocked people unconscious. In 1885, the American Medical Association officially opposed voluntary euthanasia. Though some doctors believed in the redemptive nature of suffering, the opposition was not overwhelming enough to stop the movement. The ability to relieve pain experienced as the result of surgical procedures, childbirth, or mere living, logically led to conversations about death and dying. Medications could alleviate end-of-life suffering and expedite death.

Doctors and ethicists from both the United States and England hashed out their thoughts on euthanasia in medical journals.

As time and technology progressed, everyday people came to see physicians as godlike figures, and, Lopes writes, doctors claimed a role in the process of dying. Through the early 20th century, opiates were still widely available, but physicians had begun to take control of prescribing and administering other medications.

On January 23, 1906, the Ohio legislature introduced a euthanasia bill. A Cincinnati woman named Anna Hall had lobbied hard to legalize euthanasia, hoping to hasten the death of her mother, who was suffering from a terminal and painful illness. That same year, Dr. R. H. Gregory introduced a similar bill to the Iowa state legislature. These two have been dubbed the chloroform bills.

Doctors and ethicists from both the United States and England hashed out their thoughts on euthanasia in medical journals, and the movements in both countries evolved in tandem. When Dr. Gregory proposed the Iowa euthanasia bill, the British Medical Journal responded, tearing into him:

That the man is either a crank of a particularly noxious type or a mere-notoriety hunter, is clear enough from the statement attributed to him that he simply wishes to make lawful that which is already daily practised by the greatest physicians and surgeons in every large hospital in the United States. If Dr. Gregory really believes this, he is more credulous than the simplest gobe-mouche who swallows without straining the platform facts of antivivisection and antivaccination; if he does not believe it, he is a liar of the basest kind.

A few years later, in 1911, a woman named Sadie Marchant, who was living in a Shaker colony and struggling to breathe with a single functioning lung for years, asked for help dying. The Shakers with whom shed been living prayed and decided finally that helping her die would be the right thing to do. Two of the Shakers were arrested. Their case was ultimately dismissed in January 1912, Lopes writes in Dying With Dignity. The case was well covered by newspapers across the country including the Washington Times and the New York Times. The dismissal of charges helped cement the idea of euthanasia as merciful in the case of terminal illness and grave suffering.

In 1935, the euthanasia movement got going in earnest in England when the Voluntary Euthanasia Legalization Society was founded. It held its inaugural meeting that year, and the societys founder, C. Killick Millard, wrote to the British Medical Journal that he hoped the British Medical Association, which had not offered an opinion one way or another, would not offer an opinion. The decision to die, the author continued, was not a medical one.

A bill was introduced to Britains House of Lords in 1936 that would allow anyone over 21 years old who was mentally competent and fatally ill, or sick with an incurable disease, and suffering from immense pain to request voluntary euthanasia. The person would have to have two witnesses and be seen by several doctors, and then apply to the Minister of Health, who would then have to interview the dying person. That bills requirements are nearly identical to the ones that are now law today in several U.S. states. With 35 to 14 votes, the bill was defeated.

In 1957, the Vatican proclaimed that passive euthanasia was acceptable.

In 1957, the Vatican proclaimed that passive euthanasia was acceptable, according to Thomas R. Coles review of A Merciful End. Passive euthanasia is the deliberate decision to withhold lifesaving measures, like a ventilator, knowing that death will result. Hoping to take advantage of the change in public opinion after the Popes declaration, assisted-suicide advocates pivoted to focus on legalizing passive euthanasia.

Fast-forward four decades to 1994, when Oregon became the first state to legalize aid in dying. The law was immediately challenged, Lee v. State of Oregon. The case made its way through the court system for the next three years, and in February 1997, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lower courts ruling against the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. The law went into effect in 1997.

Around the same time, Dr. Jack Kevorkian was traveling across the country with his death machine, making the cover of Time and stirring up conversation about end-of-life choices. District attorneys brought criminal charges against Kevorkian for ending peoples lives several times, but he was convicted only once. Kevorkian had filmed himself giving a man with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) life-ending medication. He then gave the tape to Mike Wallace, host of 60 Minutes. Wallace aired the tape on TV alongside an interview with Kevorkian. In the tape, after the man dies, Kevorkian challenges the district attorney to take him to court. Reluctantly, the DA did, and this time Dr. Death lost. Kevorkian was sentenced to between 10 and 25 years in prison, the New York Times reported in his obituary. He was released in June 2007, after promising hed never help in another suicide. He died in 2011.

* * *Today, anyone choosing to die under the law in states where physician aid is legal, like Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, and California, must be able to self-administer the life-ending medication. If the patient cannot, then he or she is ineligible, which means that most people suffering from neuromuscular diseases like ALS and Parkinsons will not be able to ease their pain legally. By the time people with these diseases are within six months of death, more often than not, they cannot self-administer.

That said, some doctors are still willing to help patients die, whether legally or illegally. In non-Catholic hospices, palliative sedationlike the so-called passive euthanasia of yoreis one way doctors help their patients hasten death. The doctrine of double effect safeguards doctors whose good-faith actions result in the death of their patients. If the doctor can make the case that he or she administered medicine without knowing or not believing it would result in a patients death, the doctrine protects them.

As medical technology gets better and better, death can become more prolonged and more difficult. A heart attack that once might have killed a person can now serve as a wakeup call. Ventilators keep people breathing far beyond when their bodies would have died naturally. Death does not come as it used to. While some people might welcome more days, regardless of their pain or diminished physical state, others do not. Policy and medical ethics have not kept up with technology.

View post:

The History of the Euthanasia Movement | JSTORY Daily