Category Archives: Euthanasia

Title Length Color Rating The Case for Euthanasia - In order to provide a framework for my thesis statement on the morality of euthanasia, it is first necessary to define what euthanasia is and the different types of euthanasia. The term Euthanasia originates from the Greek term eu, meaning happy or good and thanatos, which means death, so the literal definition of the word Euthanasia can be translated to mean good or happy death. The different types of Euthanasia are active or passive euthanasia and voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. Passive Euthanasia generally refers to the ending of a persons life by removing the person from a life-sustaining machine, such as a respirator.... [tags: Pro Euthanasia Essays] :: 5 Works Cited 2340 words (6.7 pages) Term Papers [preview] Euthanasia in Australia - Although euthanasia is a complex and controversial subject, under certain conditions people should have the right to decide to end their own lives. Is euthanasia murder or mercy. We need to understand what Mercy, Murder and Euthanasia are before we can form any opinion. (Oxford dictionary) Mercy / (say mersee) Compassionate or kindly forbearance shown towards: an offender, an enemy, or other person in one's power; compassion, pity, or benevolence. Murder / (say merduh) Unlawful killing of a human being by an act done: with intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm.... [tags: Argument for Euthanasia] 1842 words (5.3 pages) Better Essays [preview] Euthanasia: A law meant to be broken? - Euthanasia: A law meant to be broken? The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government . (Thomas Jefferson.) Advancements in contemporary medical technologies have served to deny individuals the right to die. However, it may be argued euthanasia has emerged with the purpose of reclaiming that right. The expression euthanasia derives from the Greek words, eu meaning well and thanatos translating to death. According to Webster dictionary, the term euthanasia is defined as an act of killing or permitting death on, incurable sick persons in a painless way, for reasons of mercy .... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 1228 words (3.5 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Exploring the Different Types of Euthanasia - Life is held dear by many, and cherished by most. Many of us can take life for granted when we are healthy and happy. In the same token; one should consider a terminally ill patient, and where such a person may fit in; when it comes to their quality of life. When dealing with unforeseen special circumstance that present themselves, could logic and reasoning be set aside. One could argue that the element of life forms a different comparison; when applied to the average healthy person. This is where the controversy begins, and morals become touchy issues for most people.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 1258 words (3.6 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Examining the Different Types of Euthanasia - Euthanasia also called mercy killing is defined as the act of putting someone to die painlessly or allowing them to die. It is a power of life and death. A doctors method of ending a life to prevent intolerable suffering. For example a person suffering from an incurable disease being taken off life support and allowed to pass away. Murder on the other hand can be defined as the act of violence against another human being. For example a man being shot and killed. The victim dies at a time which is forced by the killer whose sole purpose is to harm.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 673 words (1.9 pages) Better Essays [preview] Euthanasia = Murder - Did you ever think about what you would do once you were no longer able to take care of yourself. The pain and the suffering that you may go through, and without your consent a doctor decides to pull the plug on you. Although that may be what you want, that would be known as human euthanasia. Why would someone want to legalize such a thing. Dont you value your life enough to hope to stay alive. If euthanasia were legal, how would people think of doctors who practiced this form of homicide. Doctors are supposed to be our healers and protectors of the sick and disabled.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 1102 words (3.1 pages) Strong Essays [preview] The Pros and Cons of Euthanasia - Euthanasia is defined as a deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of ending life of another person to relieve that person's suffering and where the act is the cause of death.(Gupta, Bhatnagar and Mishra) Some define it as mercy killing. Euthanasia may be voluntary, non voluntary and involuntary. When terminally ill patient consented to end his or her life, it is called voluntary euthanasia. Non voluntary euthanasia occurs when the suffering person never consented nor requested to end a life.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 5 Works Cited 1265 words (3.6 pages) FREE Essays [view] Ethics of Euthanasia - As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 5 Works Cited 1466 words (4.2 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Euthanasia Should Not Be Legalized - Euthanasia is a Greek word which means gentle and easy death. However, it is the other way around. It is not a gentle or easy death because there is not a type of death which called gentle in the world. According to writer Prof. Ian Dowbiggin, in Ancient Greece people used euthanasia without the patient's permission. It means that in Ancient Greece they did not care about the voluntariness. Also, there are just few doctors who obey the rules of the Hippocratic Oath. (250) After Christianity, the church found out how evil suicide was and they told people killing another person or themselves was a brutal behavior.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 15 Works Cited 1276 words (3.6 pages) Unrated Essays [preview] Euthanasia Should Not Be Legal - Euthanasia is a word that comes from anc
ient Greece and it refers to good death. In the modern societies euthanasia is defined as taking away peoples lives who suffer from an incurable disease. They usually go through this process by painlessness ways to avoid the greatest pains that occurs from the disease. A huge number of countries in the World are against euthanasia and any specific type of it. One of the most important things being discussed nowadays is whether euthanasia should be legalized or not.... [tags: Euthanasia is Murder] :: 5 Works Cited 1065 words (3 pages) Better Essays [preview] Euthanasia Should Be Legal - Euthanasia has been an ongoing debate for many years. Everyone has an opinion on why euthanasia should or should not be allowed but, it is as simple as having the choice to die with dignity. If a patient wishes to end his or her life before a disease takes away their quality of life, then the patient should have the option of euthanasia. Although, American society considers euthanasia to be morally wrong euthanasia should be considered respecting a loved ones wishes. To understand euthanasia, it is important to know the rights humans have at the end of life, that there are acts of passive euthanasia already in practice, and the beneficial aspects.... [tags: Reasons for Euthanasia, Pro-Euthanasia] :: 4 Works Cited 2051 words (5.9 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Active Euthanasia Pros and Cons - Abstract Euthanasia is a long debated topic, going back for decades in our country alone. Both sides of the topic have valid points morally and ethically. The Netherlands have had euthanasia laws in effect since 1973. America has very few states with legislation on the books: Oregon enacted in 1997, Washington 2008. Germany experimented with Active Euthanasia in the 1930s, resulting in one of the most horrendous genocides in the past millennium. No where else do we have a cohort more at risk than the elderly, as they fall prey to the pressures of getting out of the way, and with a burgeoning population of baby boomers now becoming the elderly our system already strained now faces even mor... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 9 Works Cited 1625 words (4.6 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Euthanasia: A Painless Deaceful Death - Euthanasia is a painless peaceful death. Euthanasia is defined as the deliberate putting to death of a person suffering from a painful, incurable disease(New Standard Encyclopedia Dictionary). People use other terms to describe euthanasia: mercy killing, assisted suicide, and physician assisted suicide. Euthanasia can be unresponsive, (inactive) or active. Unresponsive euthanasia occurs when an incurably ill person refuses life sustaining medical support. Active euthanasia happens when another person deliberately causes the death of a terminally ill person, such as when someone gives a terminally ill person a lethal injection.... [tags: Argument for Euthanasia] 2120 words (6.1 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia: The Right to Die - Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someones life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 5 Works Cited 1655 words (4.7 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Is Euthanasia Morally and Philosophically Justifiable? - When considering whether the piece of legislation titled The Death with Dignity Act is morally and philosophically justifiable, the moral and philosophic viability of what is referred to as active voluntary euthanasia must first be evaluated. Because active voluntary euthanasia seeks to reduce the amount of suffering of the patients as well as offer individuals greater control over their life it can be justified, and the Death with Dignity Act outlines a responsible method for enacting active voluntary euthanasia.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 877 words (2.5 pages) Unrated Essays [preview] The Catholic View of Euthanasia - The catholic view of euthanasia is that euthanasia is morally wrong. it has always been taught the importance of the commandement "you shall not kill". The church has said that "nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent person, whether a foetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying". the church says any law permitting euthanasia is a unjust law. the catholic church does not accept that people have a right to die.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 845 words (2.4 pages) Better Essays [preview] Euthanasia: The Right to Decide - The definition of euthanasia is good death. There are two kinds of euthanasia one being active the other passive. Active euthanasia is the purposeful killing of a person by a medical professional either by administering a lethal injection or by prohibiting necessary means of survival. Passive euthanasia is where a patient has medical care withheld. I believe that either a terminally ill person or a severely handicapped one should have the right to decide if they wish to live or to die. I think this right is one that should be able to be chosen by any human being provided they are of sound mind and know exactly what they are asking for, and any consequences that may come with their decision... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 2 Works Cited 874 words (2.5 pages) Better Essays [preview] Euthanasia is Morally Wrong - The matter of euthanasia continues to be a contentious issue within todays society. Over the past years, there have been a slew of debates that have tried to justify the practice of assisted suicide, otherwise known as euthanasia. Gallups survey in 2007 served to illustrate this fact by showing that over 75 percent of Americans believe that euthanasia should be permitted. However, what Americans have failed to discern is that legalizing any form of euthanasia goes against the sanctity of life and will result in no limitations to the justifications of why it is being performed.... [tags: Against Euthanasia ] :: 10 Works Cited 1829 words (5.2 pages) FREE Essays [view] Euthanasia Should Be Legal - Dogs do not have many advantages over people, but one of them is extremely important:
euthanasia is not forbidden by law in their case; animals have the right to a merciful death. Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many people believe that doctors should not prescribe any medication that ends a persons life since it is considered to be against the Hippocratic Oath.... [tags: Benefits of Euthanasia] :: 12 Works Cited 2448 words (7 pages) Term Papers [preview] Death with Dignity (Euthanasia) - What is the value of life exactly. Who decides whether or not someones life is valuable. These and many other questions are asked when the controversial topic of euthanasia is discussed. Certain groups and different politicians disapprove of the legalization of euthanasia, arguing that it is immoral and unethical. Doctors use modern medicine and expanding technology to extend ones life. However, court mandates and/or politicians should not decide our rights. Especially when it involves our own bodies.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 7 Works Cited 1501 words (4.3 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Euthanasia Should Be Legal - Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many different opinions have been formed. From doctors and nurses to family members dealing with loved ones in the hospital, all of them have different ideas for the way they wish to die. However, there are many different issues affecting the legislation and beliefs of legalizing euthanasia. Taking the following aspects into mind, many may get a different understanding as to why legalization of euthanasia is necessary. Some of these include: misunderstanding of what euthanasia really is, doctors and nurses code of ethics, legal cases and laws, religious and personal beliefs, and economics in end-of-life care.... [tags: Argument for Euthanasia] :: 13 Works Cited 3709 words (10.6 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Euthanasia: Unethical And Immoral - Despite ones medical condition, euthanasia should not be an end of life choice. But what is euthanasia or doctor-assisted suicide. Euthanasia is defined as "the bringing about of a gentle and easy death for a person suffering from a painful incurable disease," while Suicide on the other hand, is "the intentional killing of oneself." Doctor-assisted suicide combines both of these definitions with the idea of a physician helping a terminally ill patient to die. Doctors can perform euthanasia by giving a patient a lethal injection or by prescribing a lethal dose of drugs (Euthanasia).... [tags: Ethics of Euthanasia] 2107 words (6 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Euthanasia is Morally Wrong - According to Websters Dictionary, Euthanasia is conceding painless death to a patient who is considered to be hopelessly ill, because of a non-curable disease. The term is used to refer to the act of deliberately taking the life of a sick person, especially those who are sick from terminal illnesses. Patients in this category are normally those who are nearing their death from a persistent terminal illness and medicine does not to have much effect on them. Different scholars hold different opinions on whether to legalize the practice.... [tags: Against Euthanasia ] :: 4 Works Cited 2422 words (6.9 pages) Research Papers [preview] Why Euthanasia is Wrong - Thou Shalt Not Kill (Exodus 20: 13-14). One of the Ten Commandments put forward by God to Moses at the top of Mount Sinai. The killing of another human being is morally wrong and unacceptable. No one has the right to take away another persons life, whether it be through hatred and disgust, or compassion and love. Murder is murder. So why should those select few who work in the clinics of Switzerland, whose occupation is to assist in a persons suicide, become immune from this law against murder.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 1251 words (3.6 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Should Euthanasia be Prohibited? - Imagine a man, sixty years of age, who has just been told by a medical doctor that his wife of forty-three years has contracted an incurable and terminal disease. The medical doctor informs the man that his spouses condition will begin to deteriorate. The disease will lead to chronic acute pain in the body, followed by loss of motor functions, and eventually death. The man is living in the moment knowing that nothing can be done to prevent his wifes disease from progressing, and in despair he chooses to over medicate her with painkillers.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 11 Works Cited 1550 words (4.4 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Euthanasia: Not Morally Acceptable - Abstract In the following essay, I argue that euthanasia is not morally acceptable because it always involves killing, and undermines intrinsic value of human being. The moral basis on which euthanasia defends its position is contradictory and arbitrary in that its moral values represented in such terms as mercy killing, dying with dignity, good death and right for self-determination fail to justify taking ones life. Introduction Among other moral issues, euthanasia emerged with modern medical advancement, which allows us ever more control over not only our life but also death.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 1644 words (4.7 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Euthanasia a Controversial and of Risky Practice - Euthanasia is a huge problem in the world today. There are many different controversies on the subject and many different ideas from people and the government. Euthanasia is often referred to as physician-assisted suicide ("Euthanasia") or mercy killing ("debate.org"). Euthanasia is referred to as the right of terminally ill people to end their suffering with a quick and dignified death ("Euthanasia"). Euthanasia can be seen as essential, profitable, or just plain unacceptable to the world but should it be legal in the United States.... [tags: death with dignity, unvoluntary euthanasia] :: 10 Works Cited 1325 words (3.8 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Argument Analysis: Euthanasia and the Right to Die - The right to die and euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, have long been topics of passionate debate. Euthanasia is simply mercy killing while the phrase physician-assisted suicide regards the administering or the provision of lethal means to aid in the ending of a persons life. The right to die entails the belief that if humans have the governmental and natural right to live and to prolong their lives then they should also have the right to end their life whenever desired. Articles such as Gary Cartwrights Last Rights and Marg
aret Somervilles The Role of Death provide the life support for these two topics will likely never fade away.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 2 Works Cited 1034 words (3 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia: Biologically Dead or Technologically Alive - Marc Weides mom decided she wanted to die and her death was scheduled in less than a week. She was diagnosed with terminal cancer and after having several nights of unbearable suffering, decided she preferred to die sooner than later. Her decision was spontaneous, and the answer she received was sooner than expected. She had to plan her funeral, her goodbyes and her last days in less than a week. Her family knew they could not interfere, not with her decision, and certainly not with the end of her life.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 7 Works Cited 1320 words (3.8 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Arguments For And Against Euthanasia - Euthanasia is the practice of ending an individual's life in order to relieve them from an incurable disease or unbearable suffering. The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek word for "good death" and originally referred to as intentional killing ( Patelarou, Vardavas, Fioraki, Alegakis, Dafermou, & Ntzilepi, 2009). Euthanasia is a controversial topic which has raised a great deal of debate globally. Although euthanasia has received great exposure in the professional media, there are some sticky points that lack clarity and need to be addressed.... [tags: Euthanasia Pros and Cons] :: 6 Works Cited 1956 words (5.6 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia Must Not Be Legalized - Presently, many cases of euthanasia had occurred around the world. Many a time we will stop and ask whether the person has anymore hope to live as a normal person. At the end it is left to the court to decide whether the people live or die. But why does the patient or the guardian choose euthanasia when they can live a longer time with their loved ones. Some might ask whether it is worth to see your loved ones suffering, wouldnt it be better to end the suffering. To answer this question we must know what euthanasia means.... [tags: Arguments Against Euthanasia] :: 9 Works Cited 2090 words (6 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Argument in Favor of Euthanasia - Debate about the morality and legality of voluntary euthanasia has been a phenomenon since the second half of the 20th century. The ancient Greeks and Romans did not believe that life needed to be preserved at any cost and were tolerant of suicide in cases where no relief could be offered to the dying or when a person no longer cared for their life (Young). In the 4th century BC, the Hippocratic Oath was written by Hippocrates, the father of medicine. One part of the Oath states, I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause and abortion (Brock).... [tags: Euthanasia, Argumentative Essay] :: 10 Works Cited 2090 words (6 pages) Better Essays [preview] Argument in Favor of Euthanasia - Introduction Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature. (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, killing is always considered murder, and while life is present, so is hope are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population.... [tags: Pro Euthanasia Essays] :: 10 Works Cited 1897 words (5.4 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Is Euthanasia Morally Acceptable? - Is it right to intentionally bring about the death of a person. The vast majority of people would instinctively answer this question no, unless it related to an act of war or perhaps self-defense. What if taking the life of the person would benefit that person by ending their suffering. Would it be morally acceptable to end their suffering. Questions like these are debated by those considering the morality of euthanasia, which is a very controversial topics in America. Euthanasia can be defined as bringing about the death of another person to somehow benefit that person (Pojman).... [tags: Pros and Cons of Euthanasia] :: 4 Works Cited 2344 words (6.7 pages) Research Papers [preview] Euthanasia Devalues Human Life - 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, and undignified death, euthanasia would allow the patient to experience a relatively good death. The technical definition of euthanasia is the act of ending life painlessly, often someone suffering from an incurable illness.... [tags: Arguments Against Euthanasia] 2070 words (5.9 pages) Strong Essays [preview] History of Euthanasia in America - History of Euthanasia in America 1973- The American Medical Association issues the Patient Bill of Rights. The groundbreaking document allows patients to refuse medical treatment. 1976- The New Jersey Supreme Court rules that the parents of Karen Ann Quinlan, who has been in a tranquilizer-and-alcohol-induced coma for a year, can remove her respirator. She dies nine years later. 1979- Jo Roman, a New York artist dying of cancer, makes a videotape, telling her friends and family she intends to end her life.... [tags: Free Euthanasia Essay] 899 words (2.6 pages) FREE Essays [view] Argument For Legalizing Euthanasia - A patient is diagnosed with brain tumors that have spread to their bones and muscles. The doctor gives them three months to live, but only with the continuation of treatment. They spend most of their remaining time in a hospital receiving chemotherapy and radiation treatments. They must be pushed in a wheelchair because they are too sick to walk and spend the rest of their few months in pain, knowing they will die but not sure when. That is how the last few months of Cristy Grayson's life was spent.... [tags: Pro Euthanasia Essay] :: 14 Works Cited 2981 words (8.5 pages) Powerful Essays [preview]
Euthanasia Essay: Eugenics To Euthanasia - Eugenics To Euthanasia This essay presents the appeal which euthanasia has to modern society. What is this appeal based on. Is it a valid appeal. These and other questions are addressed in this paper. See if this story sounds familiar: A happily married couple - she is a pianist; he a rising scientist - have their love suddenly tested by a decline in the wife's health. Diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, she falls victim to a steady loss of muscle control and paralysis. The desperate husband uses all his professional skills to save her.... [tags: Free Euthanasia Essay] :: 1 Works Cited 1001 words (2.9 pages) FREE Essays [view] Euthanasia Should Be Performed By Medical Professionals - Although, euthanasia was widely discussed in the eighteenth century (the era of enlightenment), this controversial topic only gained national publicity in the year 1915 when Dr. Haiselden refused to perform a lifesaving surgery on a deformed child, leading to the childs death (Doug, 2013). The morality of Dr. Haiseldens action became scrutinized, as America asked, Is it moral for someone to let another die through actions or lack thereof. There are differences of opinion concerning the morality of euthanasia; however, I conclude that physician-assisted suicide of the terminally ill is morally acceptable because not only is it permissible to kill terminally ill patients but also the goals... [tags: Euthanasia and Medical Ethics] :: 11 Works Cited 3063 words (8.8 pages) Research Papers [preview] Top Ten Reasons For Legalizing Euthanasia - Euthanasia has always been a taboo subject in some cultures. People all over the world so openly engage in conversation in matters of life. But when it comes to the other half of life, death, no one likes discussing it. Only terrorists claim how glorious death will be. These are some of the reasons that many people in society feel that euthanasia is morally wrong. Who is to say when it is time for someone to die or how much a person should suffer before they are allowed to end their life. How does someone know what the right age is that people should die.... [tags: Argument in Favor of Euthanasia] :: 5 Works Cited 2067 words (5.9 pages) FREE Essays [view] Defending Euthanasia - Margaret Somerville, who has authored, edited, and co-edited a number of books and newspaper articles opposing the use of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and who also is the Samuel Gale Professor of Law, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, and Founding Director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics, and Law at McGill University, Montreal, wrote the internet article titled Against Euthanasia. In the article Somerville blatantly states that any type of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is completely and totally wrong under all circumstances.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 1049 words (3 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Legalize Euthanasia - Euthanasia is very controversial topic in the world today. Euthanasia, by definition, is the act of killing someone painlessly ,especially someone suffering from an incurable illness. Many people find euthanasia morally wrong, but others find people have control over thier own bodies and have a right to die. A solution to this problem is to have the patient consent to euthansia and have legal documentation of the consent. Euthanasia and assisted suicide is a rising controversial problem in the world.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 4 Works Cited 690 words (2 pages) Better Essays [preview] America Needs Voluntary Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide - When people hear the word suicide it invokes controversy. Although it is a taboo subject; if a loved one was faced with a terminal illness becoming extremely critical this would pose a moral question. Could a person be willing to accept the fact their family member intended to use medical assisted suicide. Very few individuals would agree with this, but in the same instance should a human being want their relative to be in unbearable pain. According to the author, Indeed, physician-assisted suicide implies not a resistance to but an extension of medical power over life and death (Salem).... [tags: euthanasia, ethics] :: 5 Works Cited 1071 words (3.1 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Should Euthanasia be Allowed? - Every day, numerous people around the world acquire diseases that have no cure. Whether a person attempts vigorously to rid the disease or does nothing at all, some diseases contracted will never disappear. In fact, some diseases will cause much pain and struggle throughout one's fight for life, but in the end, these incurable diseases may kill that person leaving him/her fighting for nothing but death. If an individual will endure months of suffering and will most likely die, would it stand acceptable to allow that person a peaceful death.... [tags: euthanasia, assisted suicide, peaceful death] 1672 words (4.8 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Non-Voluntary Euthanasia: The Future of Euthanasia - Non-Voluntary Euthanasia: The Future of Euthanasia Non-voluntary euthanasia seems to be the natural direction in which euthanasia practice evolves. In the Netherlands at the present time, there is a fear on the part of the aged, about being taken to the hospital - where the doctor may have the last word about life and death. This essay digs into this evolutionary process of voluntary euthanasia evolving into the non-voluntary type. Advocates of legalised euthanasia almost always insist that they only want voluntary euthanasia (VE) - a they say they are as opposed to the taking of life without the subject's knowledge or consent, that is, non-voluntary euthanasia (NVE), as anyone... [tags: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide] :: 12 Works Cited 2940 words (8.4 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia Essay - Concerns About Euthanasia - A medical examiner from Oakland County, Michigan and three researchers from the University of South Florida have studied key characteristics of 69 patients whose suicides were assisted by Jack Kevorkian between 1990 and 1998. Their findings are published in the December 7 New England Journal of Medicine. Autopsies show that only 25 percent of Kevorkian's clients were terminally ill when he helped them kill themselves. "Seventy-two percent of the patients had had a recent decline in health status that may have precipitated the desire to die." However, "no anatomical disease was confirmed at autopsy" in 5 of the 69 people.... [tags: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide] :: 5 Works Cited
1277 words (3.6 pages) Better Essays [preview] Euthanasia is Murder - Euthanasia is the Greek word meaning good death. Euthanasia is the act of assisting in ending ones life, killing a person or an animal in a painless or minimally painful way. There are 3 different types of euthanasia. Volantary - which means that the doctor, or whoever performed the assisted death got full permission from the patient to kill them. Nonvolantary - without full consent of the patient or if the patient did give them their full consent, they werent fully decisionally-competent. And Involantary - this is when the person is killed against their will, they refuse to die but they are still killed.... [tags: Euthanasia Essay] 590 words (1.7 pages) Better Essays [preview] Euthanasia is Moral - Missing Works Cited Recent debates over active euthanasia, "killing" a terminally ill patient, in Holland, has raised the question whether euthanasia is immoral or a simple human right. Doctors seem to have no doubt. They made an oath. The definition of Euthanasia depends on whether it is active or passive. Active Euthanasia I only allowed in Holland, and it means that the doctor takes direct measures to put a patient to sleep, whereas passive Euthanasia only involves stopping pill consumption, or stopping treatment.... [tags: Argument for Euthanasia] 2629 words (7.5 pages) Strong Essays [preview] The Legalization of Euthanasia: The Case of The influence Chantal Sebire - Imagine a person goes to the doctor and finds out that he or she has inoperable or advanced stage cancer, AIDS or some debilitating disease like Lou Gehrigs or Multiple Sclerosis. Death is an inescapable fact of life, but in scenarios with cancer, AIDS and other fatal diseases, it is closer and might be more painful than one hopes. Recent developments in Belgium pertaining to the legalization of euthanasia in terminally ill children , as well as the coverage of the case of French citizen Chantal Sebire, who was s suffering from esthesioneuroblastoma( a rare, incurable cancer of the nasal cavity which would progressively damage her brain and eventually kill her) remind us of the top... [tags: Death, cancer, euthanasia] :: 9 Works Cited 1373 words (3.9 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia Moral Isuue in the United States - Every day thousands of people are turning to a controversial practice for solving their health problems. This unique practice that ends the individuals life that is suffering from a terminal illness, disease, or an incurable condition by the means of lethal injection (Emanuel) thus ceasing the persons life is called Euthanasia. Euthanasia is also referred to as a mercy killing, which is, the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition(Goel).... [tags: euthanasia bill, mercy killing, lethal injection] :: 5 Works Cited 1871 words (5.3 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Euthanasia in the Netherlands - As most countries abstain from the right to euthanasia, the Lower House of Parliament on November 28, 2000 passed a bill, legalizing euthanasia in the Netherlands. Will this law impact the beliefs and ideals of other countries and cause them to re-evaluate their medical procedures. In Why Physicians. Reflections on the Netherlands New Euthanasia Law, Jos V. M. Welie provides a descriptive overview of the history of the Dutch penal code on euthanasia in the Netherlands. In Euthanizing Life, John F.... [tags: Euthanasia, Physician Assisted Suicide] :: 2 Works Cited 859 words (2.5 pages) Better Essays [preview] The Bible and Euthanasia - Euthanasia is a controversial issue in today's society. It is defined as the intentional ending of a life with the purpose of relieving pain or suffering. Many people believe that it is within a human's right to die a peaceful, dignified death with assistance. While others believe that euthanasia is an immoral act and that legalising the deliberate killing of humans will undermine the legal system in the UK. Currently in the UK, it is illegal for a doctor or another person to deliberately do something that causes the patient to die - e.g.... [tags: Euthanasia, Physician Assisted Suicide] 603 words (1.7 pages) Unrated Essays [preview] Euthanasia/Physician Assisted Suicide Should Not be Legalized - I. Introduction An admired man, loved and respected by his family, was burdened with a life or death situation; his. At the age of 72, this man was diagnosed with cancer and being middle class, the costs of treatment seemed more painful than the cancer itself. He was distressed with the thought of putting his family through financial hardships. Living in Oregon, with the Measure 16 law just passing for the legalizing of euthanasia, he felt he had no other choice. Knowing his family would disagree, he decided to ask for his doctors advice.... [tags: Euthanasia, argumentative, persuasive] :: 1 Works Cited 1350 words (3.9 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Active Euthanasia: Benefiting The Patient is not The Worse Act - Despite passive euthanasia being more morally permissible to the majority of society, it can most certainly be argued that the action of active euthanasia results in a better consequence. Passive euthanasia is the withdrawing or withholding of a patients life-sustaining medication and active defined as the act of purposely bringing someone to their deaths. Through years of debate and criticism over methods of euthanasia, it has been concluded in the medical profession that the acts of euthanasia should be beneficial.... [tags: passive euthanasia, moral consequences] :: 7 Works Cited 1223 words (3.5 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Societys View on Abortion, Euthanasia and the Death Penalty - When it comes to the issues of dying by abortion, euthanasia or the death penalty society views each issue passionately. As we look at the issues and as the circumstances change, society will dictate how it reacts. When it comes to abortion there are two complex opposing groups, pro-lifers and pro-choicers, each group think that their position is the right position. The pro-lifers argues that abortion is not acceptable, because the fetus a viable human being, having a distinctive life of its own, to have an abortion is deliberately taking a life and that is murder.... [tags: Abortion, Euthanasia, Death Penalty] :: 1 Works Cited 1378 words (3.9 pages) Better Essays [preview]
Euthanasia in Australia - When we hear the phrase voluntary euthanasia people generally think of one of two things: the active termination of life at the patient's or the Nazi extermination program of murder. Many people have beliefs about whether euthanasia is right or wrong, often without being able to define it clearly. Some people take an extreme view, while many fall somewhere between the two camps. The derivation means gentle and easy death coming from the Greek words, eu - thanatos. Euthanasia was formerly called "mercy killing," euthanasia means intentionally making someone die, rather than allowing that person to die naturally.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 2588 words (7.4 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Speech on Euthanasia - Speech on Euthanasia I stand before you today in confrontation. I stand before you today equal to any man. I stand before you today with a challenge. I challenge any man who deems, their morals, their ethics, their beliefs, their conscience enough to find themselves fit to judge others. I challenge any man who deems himself fit to pass judgement upon anothers life. I challenge any man who believes they can play god. I challenge any man who believes in euthanasia. How can you believe in something you cannot justify.... [tags: Euthanasia is Murder] 1153 words (3.3 pages) Unrated Essays [preview] Euthanasia - Dr. Jack Kevorkian - Euthanasia - Dr. Jack Kevorkian Is euthanasia murder or is it actually saving someone from extra pain and suffering. This is just one of the questions that are causing so much debate in our society today. Should euthanasia be illegal. Is it right that a person has to suffer through three months of life support before they die just because the law says that even though a person is going to die soon that it is wrong to help them end their suffering because that would be considered murder. Many people believe that euthanasia should be legalized.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 5 Works Cited 922 words (2.6 pages) Better Essays [preview] Euthanasia Should Be A Legal Option - Euthanasia is a controversial subject, not only because there are many different moral dilemmas associated with it, but also in what constitutes its definition. At the extreme ends of disagreement, advocates say euthanasia, also known as physician aid in dying, is a good or merciful death. Opponents of euthanasia say it's a fancy word for murder. There are reasons that would make a person lean toward the side of euthanasia, and there are also reasons that would turn someone away from euthanasia.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 5 Works Cited 3415 words (9.8 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Moral Views on Abortion and Euthanasia - Moral Views on Abortion and Euthanasia The argument of the sanctity of life lies at the heart of all ethical debates on embryo experiments, abortion and euthanasia. In 1967, a nationwide debate was instigated in Britain, regarding whether abortion was a violation of the sanctity of life. Pro-life groups were angered by the legalisation of abortion, many believing that abortion was to destroy a sacred gift from God. Pro-choice groups, on the other hand, welcomed the reform, as they believed women should have the freedom to decide what is best for themselves.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 3087 words (8.8 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Pro Legalization of Euthanasia - I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint, my heart is like wax, it is melted within my breast, my mouth is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws, you lay me in the dust of death (Psalm 22) Some might say euthanasia is wrong, it is murder, it is an inhumane act. But is it not inhumane to see another persons unbearable suffering and not release them when they long to be released. Is it not cruel to watch a person in a vegetative state, with no brainwaves showing, fed by a machine, breathing with the help of a machine and not let them be liberated from their pain.... [tags: Argument for Euthanasia] :: 8 Works Cited 1914 words (5.5 pages) Term Papers [preview] Exploration of Euthanasia - Exploration of Euthanasia Euthanasia is when an ill person or somebody with a major disability wants to end their own life to stop their pain or so their family and friends can be free of looking after them, it's not just when somebody is ill but it is also when they decide enough is enough. There are many types of euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia - when the ill person chooses to ask to die but is incapable of committing suicide without any help. This is often called 'assisted suicide' Involuntary euthanasia - when other people decide that it would be best if someone's life ends because he or she is not able to make such a decision.... [tags: Free Euthanasia Essay] 698 words (2 pages) FREE Essays [view] Euthanasia and Religion - Euthanasia and Religion In the world today, medical technology is so advanced that a terminally ill patient can be kept alive for months or even years - sometimes against the will of the patient. When did suicide become a sin, and who decided that it was. "Opinion polls consistently show a majority of people professing all varieties of faiths support a change in the law for voluntary euthanasia. Even amongst Roman Catholics, more people support euthanasia than oppose (a poll in Scotland showed over 50% support), in spite of the church's opposition" (Religion and the Right to Die 1).... [tags: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide] :: 10 Works Cited 2181 words (6.2 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Euthanasia and Religion - Euthanasia and Religion Euthanasia is the inducement of a gentle and easy death. It is considered to be a form of suicide. Yet the procedure requires the assistance of a third party, due to the potential incapacity of the individual requesting this procedure be carried out. The case could then be turned into one of homicide. As a result of this, it is incredibly difficult to find an individual who is willing to aid in the conduct of euthanasia, as they could face prosecution in a criminal court on the charge of murder.... [tags: Free Euthanasia Essay] 840 words (2.4 pages) FREE Essays [view] Doctors and Euthanasia - The Australian Medical Association opposes euthanasia. The Canadian Medical Association opposes euthanasia. The American Medical Association opposes euthanasia. The British Medical Association opposes euthanasia. This essay tries to explain why. During the debate in 1995-7 over the Northern Territory's temporary legalization of euthanasia, the Austra
lian Medical Association was a major factor in convincing the nation's parliament to reverse the law. Canadian doctors watched with great interest the national debate in the United States leading up to the Supreme Court decision of June of '97.... [tags: Euthanasia, Physician Assisted Suicide] 498 words (1.4 pages) FREE Essays [view] The Euthanasia Debate - Euthanasia in this paper is examined in those countries which have legalized the procedure. And is found to be more of a burden than a blessing, indicating from the Dutch experience that it becomes an uncontrollable force once it has been legalized. There are welcome alternatives, for which proper training is necessary on the part of medical professionals. The original or first broad euthanasia program was for the purpose of "purifying" the German race under Hitler. It was a creation of German physicians, not of Hitler.... [tags: Pros and Cons of Euthanasia] :: 10 Works Cited 2473 words (7.1 pages) Strong Essays [preview] The Euthanasia Debate - Qualifying euthanasia by calling it active or passive, direct or indirect, voluntary, non-voluntary, involuntary, or assisted suicide only confuses the picture. Euthanasia is when the doctor kills the patient. This simplification is made at the outset as an assist to the reader in more easily understanding the essential meaning without getting lost in hair-splitting verbiage. This approach does not compromise any of the excellent sources documenting this essay. The original or first broad euthanasia program was for the purpose of "purifying" the German race under Hitler.... [tags: Pros and Cons of Euthanasia] :: 11 Works Cited 3048 words (8.7 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Abortion and euthanasia - Abortion And Euthanasia The Roman Catholic Church believe that life begins when the baby is made (conception). From this belief it influences its attitude to issues such as contraception, euthanasia and suicide. Roman Catholics say that life is sacred. What they mean by that is that life is special to God. For them, every person is a separate living human being and all have the rights to live. All Roman Catholics are against abortion, they believe that abortion is a murder and should have the rights to life.... [tags: Free Euthanasia Essay] 715 words (2 pages) FREE Essays [view] Euthanasia: Everyone Has the Right to Die - One of the reasons I picked Euthanasia is a subject that I am unfamiliar with. I want to learn both sides of the argument and how people from each side thought about it. So in this paper I will talk about both sides of the argument, the people on each side, and the different types of Euthanasia. The subject of Euthanasia is a heated battle, in which lines have been drawn between warring social, religious and political groups. Many people want this controversial institution erased from the volumes of lawful medicine, but others say that we should be able to choose our fates in extreme cases.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 1489 words (4.3 pages) FREE Essays [view] The Debate on Euthanasia in the United Kingdom - The Debate on Euthanasia in the United Kingdom One of the biggest controversies in the UK today is Euthanasia. Arguments about Euthanasia often hinge on the right to life and right to die, should it be legalised. Originally the word Euthanasia meant a gentle and easy death, however nowadays it is the act of inducing an easy death. Why the change in meaning and everybodys new found view that Euthanasia is in fact murder. Many people have diverse views on the issue. Humanists live by moral principles and promote happiness and fulfillment in this life; they believe that voluntary euthanasia is morally correct, whilst upholding the need for safeguards to preven... [tags: Free Euthanasia Essay] 647 words (1.8 pages) FREE Essays [view] Euthanasia should not be legalized in America - Euthanasia refers to the intentional bringing about of the death of a patient, either by killing him/her, or by letting him/her die, for the patients sake to prevent further pain or suffering from a terminal illness. Euthanasia is a complex issue in many underlying theological, sociological, moral, and legal aspects. Its legalization is heavily debated around the world, with strong arguments made for both sides of the issue. The supporters of euthanasia often repeated that We have to respect the freedom of the patient" or people should be able to exercise control over their own lives and death. However, Euthanasia, by nature, is wrongfully killing or mercy killing, and if we al... [tags: Free Euthanasia Essay] 898 words (2.6 pages) FREE Essays [view] A Reasonable Approach to Euthanasia - A Reasonable Approach to Euthanasia One of the biggest controversies of this decade is euthanasia. Euthanasia is "inducing the painless death of a person for reasons assumed to be merciful?(Henrickson and Martin 24). There are four types of euthanasia voluntary and direct, voluntary but indirect, direct but involuntary, and indirect and involuntary. Voluntary and direct euthanasia is "chosen and carried out by the patient.. Voluntary but indirect euthanasia is chosen in advance. Direct but involuntary euthanasia is done for the patient without his or her request.... [tags: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide] :: 8 Works Cited 1570 words (4.5 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia is the Right to Kill - Euthanasia is the Right to Kill In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley shows an example of the widely debated topic of doctor-assisted deaths, or euthanasia. Formerly called mercy killing, euthanasia means making someone die rather than allowing them to die naturally. In Huxleys novel the futuristic World-State uses euthanasia for everyone who is no longer useful to society. Death with dignity, has become a catch phrase used by euthanasia activists, but theres nothing dignified about killing someone.... [tags: Free Euthanasia Essay] 604 words (1.7 pages) FREE Essays [view] Euthanasia: Each Case is Unique - Which is better - suffering, agonizing, and holding onto life for a short period of time or just being laid to rest in peace. Nine out of ten people would pick the latter if just asked that question without a scenario, but when given an example containing their family they might change their opinion. This is when the question of whether or not euthanasia should be an option comes into play. Euthanasia is a topic to which many people do not give a lot of thought. When reading about euthanasia and having to make the decision whether or not I support or oppose
it, I came to the conclusion that I support euthanasia - but only in certain cases.... [tags: Euthanasia, Physician Assisted Suicide] :: 1 Works Cited 755 words (2.2 pages) Better Essays [preview] Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide and the Law - Euthanasia and the Law A severely handicapped or terminally ill person should have the right to choose to live or die. The right to live; the right to choose to live or die should not only be a right allocated for bodied individuals of sound mind but for all human beings. Euthanasia is a controversial issue which encompasses the morals, values and beliefs of our society. Euthanasia, literally defined means "good death". There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive.... [tags: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide] 1865 words (5.3 pages) FREE Essays [view] Euthanasia: Not Just for the Terminally Ill - Euthanasia: Not Just for the Terminally Ill Euthanasia or assisted suicide would not only be available to people who are terminally ill. This popular misconception is what this essay seeks to correct. There is considerable confusion on this point, perhaps further complicated by statements in the media. There are two problems here - the definition of "terminal" and the changes that have already taken place to extend euthanasia or assisted suicide to those who aren't "terminally ill. There are many definitions for the word "terminal." For example, Jack Kevorkian who participated in the deaths of more than 130 people before he was convicted of murder said that a terminal illness... [tags: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide] :: 12 Works Cited 1389 words (4 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia Not Only at Patient's Request - Euthanasia Not Only at Patient's Request No indeed, euthanasia and assisted suicide would not only be at a patient's request. This false presumption has been disproven time and again by the practical working-out of euthanasia and assisted suicide in locales where it has been legalized. And yes, there are complications, which are not given great media exposure, but which appear in journals devoted to this debate. It is the intention of this essay to correct these false notions - with copious professional documentation.... [tags: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide] :: 19 Works Cited 2391 words (6.8 pages) FREE Essays [view] Moral and Ethical Issues of Euthanasia - Moral and Ethical Issues of Euthanasia As we all know, medical treatment can help save lives. But is there a medical treatment that would actually help end life. Although it's often debated upon, the procedure is still used to help the aid of a patient's death. Usually dubbed as mercy killing, euthanasia is the "practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering" (Encarta). My argument over this topic is that euthanasia should have strict criteria over the use of it.... [tags: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide] :: 5 Works Cited 1525 words (4.4 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Active Euthanasia, Free Will and Autonomy - Active Euthanasia, Free Will and Autonomy "Medicine in the hands of a fool has always been poison and death." -C. J. Jung Euthanasia, from the Greek, quite literally means "the good death." Advocates of euthanasia, offer it as a solution for the emotional, psychological and physiologic suffering of terminally ill patients. The type of euthanasia, which is presently under debate, is called "active euthanasia" and is defined as an act performed by an individual to bring about the death of another person.... [tags: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide] :: 5 Works Cited 1933 words (5.5 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Dr. Kevorkian and the Benefits of Euthanasia - Everybody at one time or another will inevitably have death knocking at the door. And no it will not be Brad Pitt. Coping with death is a very difficult concept to deal with. Dying comes in one of three ways: homicide, suicide and natural causes. There is no debate with regards to homicide, a person takes the life of another person. Suicide is the taking of one's own life, similarly a paper cannot be written for or against it. Last but not least is death by natural causes. I would not want to write a paper on why a one hundred-fifty year old person passes away; could it have been that the person was really really old.... [tags: Euthanasia, Physician Assisted Suicide] 1936 words (5.5 pages) FREE Essays [view]

See more here:

Free euthanasia Essays and Papers - 123helpme

Action T4

Hitler's order for Action T4

Action T4 (German: Aktion T4, pronounced [aktsion te fi]) was the postwar designation for a programme of forced euthanasia in wartime Nazi Germany.[2] The name T4 is an abbreviation of Tiergartenstrae 4, a street address of the Chancellery department set up in spring 1940 in the Berlin borough of Tiergarten, which recruited and paid personnel associated with T4.[3] Under the programme German physicians were directed to sign off patients "incurably sick, by critical medical examination" and then administer to them a "mercy death" (German: Gnadentod).[5] In October 1939 Adolf Hitler signed a "euthanasia decree" backdated to 1 September 1939 that authorized Reichsleiter Philipp Bouhler, the chief of his Chancellery,[6] and Dr. Karl Brandt, Hitler's personal physician, to carry out the programme of involuntary euthanasia (translated as follows):

Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are entrusted with the responsibility of extending the authority of physicians, designated by name, so that patients who, on the basis of human judgment [menschlichem Ermessen], are considered incurable, can be granted mercy death [Gnadentod] after a definitive diagnosis. Adolf Hitler[7]

The programme ran officially from September 1939[9] to August 1941,[10] during which the recorded 70,273 people were killed at various extermination centres located at psychiatric hospitals in Germany and Austria, along with those in occupied Poland.[11]

Several rationales for the programme have been offered, including eugenics, compassion, reducing suffering, racial hygiene, cost effectiveness and pressure on the welfare budget.[12][13] After the formal end date of the programme, physicians in German and Austrian facilities continued many of the practices that had been instituted under Action T4, until the defeat of Germany in 1945.[15] The unofficial continuation of the policy led to additional deaths by medicine and similar means;[16] resulting in 93,521 beds "emptied" by the end of 1941. Historians estimate that twice the official number of T4 victims might have perished before the end of the war.[16][17] In addition, technology that was developed under Action T4, particularly the use of lethal gas to commit mass murder, was subsequently taken over by the medical division of the Reich Interior Ministry, along with transfer of personnel who had participated in the development of the technology and later served with Operation Reinhard.[19] This technology, the personnel and the techniques developed to deceive victims were used in the implementation of industrial killings in mobile death vans, and in established extermination camps with gas chambers for mass murder during the Holocaust.

The term "Aktion T4" was only introduced after 1945. At the time of the programme implementation the German terminology varied euphemistically between Euthanasie ("euthanasia") and Gnadentod ("merciful death").[7] In a minimal public relations effort, the perpetrators used these terms as bureaucratic cover, in order to invest with medical legitimacy what was essentially an outgrowth of negative eugenics violating basic human rights.[22] The killing was done solely according to the Nazi socio-political aims and beliefs, coupled with deception in dealing with victims and their families, as well as widespread use of faked death certificates, and cremation, to remove possible proof of criminal intent.[22]

The T4 programme stemmed from the Nazi Party's policy of "racial hygiene",[22] the belief that the German people needed to be "cleansed" of so-called racial enemies, which included people with disabilities as well as anyone confined to a mental health facility.[22] The 'euthanasia' programme was a major step in the evolution of policy that culminated in the extermination of the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust.[12] Hitler's ideology had embraced the enforcement of "racial hygiene" from its outset. In his book Mein Kampf (1924), Hitler wrote that one day the task: "will appear as a deed greater than the most victorious wars of our present bourgeois era."[23]

The idea of sterilising those carrying hereditary defects or exhibiting what was thought to be hereditary "antisocial" behaviour was widely accepted. The United States, Sweden, Switzerland and other countries also passed laws authorizing sterilization of certain classes of people. For example, between 1935 and 1975 Sweden sterilised 63,000 people on eugenic grounds.[24]

The policy and research agenda in racial hygiene and eugenics were actively promoted by Emil Kraepelin.[25] The eugenic sterilization of persons diagnosed with (and viewed as predisposed to) schizophrenia was advocated by Eugene Bleuler[26] who presumed racial deterioration because of mental and physical cripples in his Textbook of Psychiatry:[27]

The more severely burdened should not propagate themselves If we do nothing but make mental and physical cripples capable of propagating themselves, and the healthy stocks have to limit the number of their children because so much has to be done for the maintenance of others, if natural selection is generally suppressed, then unless we will get new measures our race must rapidly deteriorate.[27]

The Nazis began to implement "racial hygiene" policies as soon as they came to power. The July 1933 "Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring" prescribed compulsory sterilisation for people with a range of conditions thought to be hereditary, such as schizophrenia, epilepsy, Huntington's chorea and "imbecility". Sterilisation was also mandated for chronic alcoholism and other forms of social deviance.[28] The law was administered by the Interior Ministry under Wilhelm Frick through special Hereditary Health Courts (Erbgesundheitsgerichte), which examined the inmates of nursing homes, asylums, prisons, aged-care homes, and special schools to select those to be sterilised.[29]

It is estimated that 360,000 people were sterilised under this law between 1933 and 1939. Within the Nazi administration, some suggested that the programme should be extended to people with physical disabilities, but such ideas had to be expressed carefully, given that one of the most powerful figures of the regime, Joseph Goebbels, had a deformed right leg.[30] After 1937 the acute shortage of labour in Germany, arising from the demands of the crash rearmament programme, meant that anyone capable of work was deemed to be "useful" and thus exempted from the law. The rate of sterilisation declined.[29]

Both his physician, Dr. Karl Brandt, and the head of the Reich Chancellery, Hans Lammers, testified after the war that Hitler had told them as early as 1933 at the time when the sterilisation law was passed that he favoured the killing of the incurably ill, but recognised that public opinion would not accept this. In 1935 Hitler told the Leader of Reich Doctors, Gerhard Wagner, that the question could not be taken up in peacetime: "Such a problem could be more smoothly and easily carried out in war." He wrote that he intended to 'radically solve' the problem of the mental asylums in such an event.[31]

Although officially started in September 1939, Action T4 was initiated with a 'trial' case in late 1938.[32] Hitler instructed his personal physician Karl Brandt to evaluate a family's petition for the "mercy killing" of their blind, physically and developmentally disabled boy.[33] The child, born near Leipzig and identified as Gerhard Kretschmar eventually,[34] was kil
led in July 1939.[35] Hitler instructed Brandt to proceed in the same manner in all similar cases.[36] Three weeks after the killing of the boy, the Reich Committee for the Scientific Registering of Hereditary and Congenital Illnesses was established on 18 August 1939. It was to prepare and proceed with the registration of sick children or newborns identified as defective. Secret killing of infants began in 1939 and increased after the war started. By 1941 more than 5,000 children had been killed.[37]

Hitler was in favour of killing those whom he judged to be "unworthy of life". In a 1939 conference with health minister Leonardo Conti and the head of the Reich Chancellery, Hans Lammers a few months before the 'euthanasia' decree Hitler gave as examples the mentally ill who he said could only be "bedded on sawdust or sand" because they "perpetually dirtied themselves" and "put their own excrement into their mouths." This issue, according to the Nazi regime, assumed new urgency in wartime. After the invasion of Poland the leading Nazi doctor, Dr. Hermann Pfannmller, said: "It is unbearable to me that the flower of our youth must lose their lives at the front while that feeble-minded and asocial element can have a secure existence in the asylum". Pfannmller advocated gradual decrease of the food rations rather than death by medicine, which he believed was more merciful than poison injections.[39]

The German eugenics movement had an extreme wing even before the Nazis came to power. As early as 1920, Alfred Hoche and Karl Binding advocated killing those whose lives were "unworthy of life" (lebensunwertes Leben).[40] Darwinism was interpreted by them as justification of the demand for "beneficial" genes and eradication of the "harmful" ones. Historian Robert Lifton noted: "The argument went that the best young men died in war, causing a loss to the Volk of the best available genes. The genes of those who did not fight (the worst genes) then proliferated freely, accelerating biological and cultural degeneration".

The advocation of eugenics in Germany gained ground after 1930, when the Depression caused sharp cuts in funding to state mental hospitals, creating squalor and overcrowding.[42] Most German eugenicists were already strongly nationalist and anti-Semitic, and embraced the Nazi regime with enthusiasm. Many were appointed to positions in the Health Ministry and German research institutes. Their ideas were gradually adopted by the majority of the German medical profession, from which Jewish and communist doctors were soon purged.[43]

During the 1930s the Nazi Party carried out a campaign of propaganda in favour of "euthanasia". The National Socialist Racial and Political Office (NSRPA) produced leaflets, posters and short films to be shown in cinemas, pointing out to Germans the cost of maintaining asylums for the incurably ill and insane. These films included The Inheritance (Das Erbe, 1935), The Victim of the Past (Opfer der Vergangenheit, 1937), which was given a major premire in Berlin and was shown in all German cinemas, and I Accuse (Ich klage an, 1941), which was based on a novel by consultant for 'child euthanasia' Hellmuth Unger.

In mid-1939 Hitler authorized the creation of the Reich Committee for the Scientific Registering of Serious Hereditary and Congenital Illnesses (Reichsausschuss zur wissenschaftlichen Erfassung erb- und anlagebedingter schwerer Leiden), headed by Dr. Karl Brandt, his personal physician, and administered by Herbert Linden of the Interior Ministry as well as SS-Oberfhrer Viktor Brack. Brandt and Bouhler were authorized to approve applications to kill children in relevant circumstances,[45][46] though Bouhler left the details to subordinates such as Brack and SA-Oberfhrer Werner Blankenburg.[47]

Extermination centres were established at six existing psychiatric hospitals: Bernburg, Brandenburg, Grafeneck, Hadamar, Hartheim, and Sonnenstein.[22][48] They played a crucial role in developments leading to the Holocaust.[22] As a related aspect of the "medical" and scientific basis of this programme, the Nazi doctors took thousands of brains from 'euthanasia' victims for research.[49]

From August 1939 the Interior Ministry began registering children with disabilities, requiring doctors and midwives to report all cases of newborns with severe disabilities; the 'guardian' consent element soon disappeared. Those to be killed were identified as "all children under three years of age in whom any of the following 'serious hereditary diseases' were 'suspected': idiocy and Down syndrome (especially when associated with blindness and deafness); microcephaly; hydrocephaly; malformations of all kinds, especially of limbs, head, and spinal column; and paralysis, including spastic conditions". The reports were assessed by a panel of medical experts, of whom three were required to give their approval before a child could be killed.[51]

The Ministry used various deceptions when dealing with parents or guardians particularly in Catholic areas, where parents were generally uncooperative. Parents were told that their children were being sent to "Special Sections" for children, where they would receive improved treatment. The children sent to these centres were kept for "assessment" for a few weeks and then killed by injection of toxic chemicals, typically phenol; their deaths were recorded as "pneumonia". Autopsies were usually performed, and brain samples were taken to be used for "medical research". This apparently helped to ease the consciences of many of those involved, since it gave them the feeling that the children had not died in vain, and that the whole programme had a genuine medical purpose.

Once war broke out in September 1939, the programme adopted less rigorous standards of assessment and a quicker approval process. It expanded to include older children and adolescents. The conditions covered also expanded and came to include

"various borderline or limited impairments in children of different ages, culminating in the killing of those designated as juvenile delinquents. Jewish children could be placed in the net primarily because they were Jewish; and at one of the institutions, a special department was set up for 'minor Jewish-Aryan half-breeds'".

At the same time, increased pressure was placed on parents to agree to their children being sent away. Many parents suspected what was really happening, especially when it became apparent that institutions for children with disabilities were being systematically cleared of their charges, and refused consent. The parents were warned that they could lose custody of all their children, and if that did not suffice, the parents could be threatened with call-up for 'labour duty'. By 1941 more than 5,000 children had been killed.[56] The last child to be killed under Action T4 was Richard Jenne on 29 May 1945 in the children's ward of the Kaufbeuren-Irsee state hospital in Bavaria, Germany, more than three weeks after troops from the U.S. had occupied the town.[57][58]

Brandt and Bouhler soon developed plans to expand the programme of euthanasia to adults. In July 1939 they held a meeting attended by Dr. Leonardo Conti, Reich Health Leader and state secretary for health in the Interior Ministry, and Professor Werner Heyde, head of the SS medical department. This meeting agreed to arranging a national register of all institutionalised people with mental illnesses or physical disabilities.

The first adults with disabilities to be killed on a mass scale by the Nazi regime were not Germans, but Poles. They were shot by the SS men of Einsatzkommando 16, Se
lbstschutz and EK-Einmann under direct command of SS-Sturmbannfhrer Rudolf Trger, with overall command by Reinhard Heydrich during the genocidal Operation Tannenberg in which 36,00042,000 people including Polish children died before the end of 1939 in Pomerania.[60] All hospitals and mental asylums of the Wartheland were emptied. The region was incorporated into Germany and earmarked for resettlement by Volksdeutsche following the German conquest of Poland. Notably, the technology for mass gassing of hospital patients had not been invented yet.[61] In the Danzig (now Gdask) area, some 7,000 Polish patients of various institutions were shot, while 10,000 were killed in the Gdynia area. Similar measures were taken in other areas of Poland destined for incorporation into Germany.[62] The first experiments with the gassing of patients were conducted in October 1939 at Fort VII in Posen (occupied Pozna), where hundreds of prisoners were killed by means of carbon monoxide poisoning in an improvised gas chamber developed by Dr Albert Widmann, chief chemist of the German Criminal Police (Kripo). In December 1939 Reichsfhrer of the SS, Heinrich Himmler, witnessed one of these gassings, ensuring that this invention would later be put to much wider uses.[63]

The idea of killing adult mental patients soon spread from occupied Poland to adjoining areas of Germany, probably because Nazi Party and SS officers in these areas were most familiar with what was happening in Poland. These were also the areas where Germans wounded from the Polish campaign were expected to be accommodated, which created a demand for hospital space. The Gauleiter of Pomerania, Franz Schwede-Coburg, sent 1,400 patients from five Pomeranian hospitals to undisclosed locations in occupied Poland where they were shot. Likewise, the Gauleiter of East Prussia, Erich Koch, had 1,600 patients murdered out of sight. In all, more than 8,000 Germans were killed in this initial wave of killings carried out under the command of local officials, although Himmler certainly knew and approved of them.[64]

The sole legal basis for the programme was a 1939 letter from Hitler, not a formal 'Fhrer's decree' which would carry the force of law. Hitler deliberately bypassed Health Minister Conti and his department, who might have raised questions about the legality of the programme. He entrusted it to his personal agents Bouhler and Brandt. The programme was administered by Viktor Brack and his staff from Tiergartenstrae 4 disguised as the "Charitable Foundation for Cure and Institutional Care" offices which served as the front. It was supervised by Bouhler and Brandt.[66][67]

The officials in charge included Dr Herbert Linden, who had been heavily involved in the children's programme; Dr Ernst-Robert Grawitz, chief physician of the SS; and August Becker, an SS chemist. They personally selected doctors who were to carry out the operational part of the programme; based on political reliability as long-term Nazis, professional reputation, and known sympathy for radical eugenics. The list included physicians who had proved their worth in the child-killing programme, such as Unger, Heinze, and Hermann Pfannmller. The new recruits were mostly psychiatrists, notably Professor Carl Schneider of Heidelberg, Professor Max de Crinis of Berlin and Professor Paul Nitsche from the Sonnenstein state institution. Heyde became the operational leader of the programme, succeeded later by Nitsche.

In early October all hospitals, nursing homes, old-age homes and sanatoria were required to report all patients who had been institutionalised for five years or more, who had been committed as "criminally insane", who were of "non-Aryan race", or who had been diagnosed with any of a list of specified conditions. These included schizophrenia, epilepsy, Huntington's chorea, advanced syphilis, senile dementia, paralysis, encephalitis and "terminal neurological conditions generally". Many doctors and administrators assumed that the purpose of the reports was to identify inmates who were capable of being drafted for "labour service". They tended to overstate the degree of incapacity of their patients, to protect them from labour conscription with fatal consequences. When some institutions refused to co-operate, teams of T4 doctors (or in some cases Nazi medical students) visited them and compiled their own lists, sometimes in a very haphazard and ideologically motivated way.[69] At the same time, during 1940 all Jewish patients were removed from institutions and killed.[70]

As with the child inmates, the adult cases were assessed by a panel of experts, working at the Tiergartenstrae offices. The experts were required to make their judgments solely on the basis of the reports, rather than on detailed medical histories, let alone examinations. Sometimes they dealt with hundreds of reports at a time. On each they marked a + (meaning death), a - (meaning life), or occasionally a ? meaning that they were unable to decide. Three "death" verdicts condemned the person concerned. As with reviews of children, over time these processes became less rigorous, the range of conditions considered "unsustainable" grew broader, and zealous Nazis further down the chain of command increasingly made decisions on their own initiative.[69]

The first gassings in Germany proper took place in January 1940 at the Brandenburg Euthanasia Centre. The operation was headed by Viktor Brack, who said: "the needle belongs in the hand of the doctor."[71] Bottled pure carbon monoxide gas was used.[72] At trials, Brandt described the process as a "major advance in medical history". Once the efficacy of the method was confirmed, it became standardised, and instituted at a number of centres across Germany under the supervision of Widmann, Becker, and Christian Wirth a Kripo officer who later played a prominent role in the extermination of the Jews as commandant of newly built death camps in occupied Poland. In addition to Brandenburg, the killing centres included Grafeneck Castle in Baden-Wrttemberg (10,824 dead), Schloss Hartheim near Linz in Austria (over 18,000 dead), Sonnenstein Euthanasia Centre in Saxony (15,000 dead), Bernburg Euthanasia Centre in Saxony-Anhalt and Hadamar Euthanasia Centre in Hesse (14,494 dead). The same facilities were also used to kill mentally sound prisoners transferred from concentration camps in Germany, Austria and occupied parts of Poland.

Condemned patients were 'transferred' from their institutions to newly built centres in the T4 Charitable Ambulance buses, called the Community Patients Transports Service. They were run by teams of SS men wearing white coats, to give it an air of medical care.[74] To prevent the families and doctors of the patients from tracing them, the patients were often first sent to transit centres in major hospitals, where they were supposedly assessed. They were moved again to "special treatment" (Sonderbehandlung) centres. Families were sent letters explaining that owing to wartime regulations, it was not possible for them to visit relatives in these centres. Most of these patients were killed within 24 hours of arriving at the centres, and their bodies cremated.[72] For every person killed, a death certificate was prepared, giving a false but plausible cause of death. This was sent to the family along with an urn of ashes (random ashes, since the victims were cremated en masse). The preparation of thousands of falsified death certificates took up most of the working day of the doctors who operated the centres.

During 1940 the centres at Brandenburg, Grafeneck and Hartheim killed nearly 10,000 people each, while another 6,000 were
killed at Sonnenstein. In all, about 35,000 people were killed in T4 operations that year. Operations at Brandenburg and Grafeneck were wound up at the end of the year, partly because the areas they served had been cleared and partly because of public opposition. In 1941, however, the centres at Bernburg and Sonnenstein increased their operations, while Hartheim (where Wirth and Franz Stangl were successively commandants) continued as before. As a result, another 35,000 people were killed before August 1941, when the T4 programme was officially shut down by Hitler. Even after that date, however, the centres continued to be used to kill concentration camp inmates: eventually some 20,000 people in this category were killed.[76]

In 1971 the Austrian-born journalist Gitta Sereny conducted a series of interviews with Franz Stangl, who was in prison in Dsseldorf after having been convicted of co-responsibility for killing 900,000 people as commandant of the Sobibor and Treblinka extermination camps in Poland. Stangl gave Sereny a detailed account of the operations of the T4 programme based on his time as commandant of the killing facility at the Hartheim institute. He described how the inmates of various asylums were removed and transported by bus to Hartheim. Some were in no mental state to know what was happening to them, but many were perfectly sane, and for them various forms of deception were used. They were told they were at a special clinic where they would receive improved treatment, and were given a brief medical examination on arrival. They were induced to enter what appeared to be a shower block, where they were gassed with carbon monoxide (this ruse was later used on a much larger scale at the extermination camps).

After the official end of the euthanasia programme in 1941, most of the personnel and high-ranking officials, as well as gassing technology and the techniques used to deceive victims, were transferred under the jurisdiction of the national medical division of the Reich Interior Ministry.[15] Further gassing experiments with the use of mobile gas-chambers (Einsatzwagen) were conducted at Soldau concentration camp by Herbert Lange following Operation Barbarossa. Lange was appointed commander of the Chemno extermination camp in December 1941. He was given three gas vans by the RSHA, converted by the Gaubschat GmbH in Berlin,[78] and already before February 1942 killed atotal of 3,830 Polish Jews and around 4,000 Gypsies under the guise of "resettlement".[79] After the Wannsee conference, the knowledge acquired in the process was then put to use by Reinhard Heydrich in the deadliest phase of the Holocaust. Beginning in spring 1942 three industrial killing centres were built secretly in east-central Poland. The SS officers responsible for the Aktion T4, including Christian Wirth, Franz Stangl, and Irmfried Eberl, were all given key roles in the implementation of the "Final Solution" for the next two years. The first killing centre equipped with stationary gas chambers modelled on Action T4 was established at Beec in the General Government territory of occupied Poland. Notably, the decision preceded the Wannsee Conference of January 1942 by three months.[80]

In January 1939 Viktor Brack commissioned a paper from Professor of Moral Theology at the University of Paderborn, Joseph Mayer, on the likely reactions of the churches in the event of a state euthanasia programme being instituted. Mayer a longstanding euthanasia advocate reported that the churches would not oppose such a programme if it was seen to be in the national interest. Brack showed this paper to Hitler in July, and it may have increased his confidence that the "euthanasia" programme would be acceptable to German public opinion.[46] Notably, when Gitta Sereny interviewed Mayer shortly before his death in 1967, he denied that he formally condoned the killing of people with disabilities, but no copies of this paper are known to survive.

There were those who opposed the T4 programme within the bureaucracy. Lothar Kreyssig, a district judge and member of the Confessing Church, wrote to Grtner protesting that the action was illegal since no law or formal decree from Hitler had authorised it. Grtner replied, "If you cannot recognise the will of the Fhrer as a source of law, then you cannot remain a judge", and had Kreyssig dismissed.[42] Hitler had a fixed policy of not issuing written instructions for policies relating to what could later be condemned by international community, but made an exception when he provided Bouhler and Brack with written authority for the T4 programme in his confidential letter of October 1939 in order to overcome opposition within the German state bureaucracy. Hitler told Bouhler at the outset that "the Fhrer's Chancellery must under no circumstances be seen to be active in this matter."[66] The Justice Minister, Franz Grtner, had to be shown Hitler's letter in August 1940 to gain his cooperation.[67]

In the towns where the killing centres were located, many people saw the inmates arrive in buses, saw the smoke from the crematoria chimneys and noticed that the buses were returning empty. In Hadamar, ashes containing human hair rained down on the town. The T4 programme was no secret. Despite the strictest orders, some of the staff at the killing centres talked about what was going on. In some cases families could tell that the causes of death in certificates were false, e.g. when a patient was claimed to have died of appendicitis, even though his appendix had been surgically removed some years earlier. In other cases, several families in the same town would receive death certificates on the same day. In May 1941 the Frankfurt County Court wrote to Grtner describing scenes in Hadamar where children shouted in the streets that people were being taken away in buses to be gassed.

During 1940 rumours of what was taking place spread, and many Germans withdrew their relatives from asylums and sanatoria to care for them at home often with great expense and difficulty. In some places doctors and psychiatrists co-operated with families to have patients discharged, or, if the families could afford it, had them transferred to private clinics where the reach of T4 did not extend. Other doctors agreed to "re-diagnose" some patients so that they no longer met the T4 criteria. This risked exposure when the Nazi zealots from Berlin conducted inspections. In Kiel, Professor Hans Gerhard Creutzfeldt managed to save nearly all of his patients. However, for the most part doctors co-operated with the programme, either from ignorance of its true meaning, agreement with Nazi eugenicist policies, or fear of the regime.

During 1940 protest letters were sent to the Reich Chancellery and the Ministry of Justice, some of them from Nazi Party members. The first open protest against the removal of people from asylums took place at Absberg in Franconia in February 1941, and others followed. The SD report on the incident at Absberg noted that "the removal of residents from the Ottilien Home has caused a great deal of unpleasantness", and described large crowds of Catholic townspeople, among them Party members, protesting against the action.

Others who privately protested were the Lutheran theologian Friedrich von Bodelschwingh, director of the Bethel Institution for epileptics at Bielefeld and Pastor Paul-Gerhard Braune, director of the Hoffnungstal Institution near Berlin. Both used their connections with the regime to negotiate exemptions for their institutions: Bodelschwingh negotiated directly with Brandt and indirectly with Hermann Gring, whose cousin was a prominent psychiatrist. Br
aune had meetings with Justice Minister Grtner, who was always dubious about the legality of the programme. Grtner later wrote a strongly worded letter to Hitler protesting against it; Hitler did not read it, but was told about it by Lammers. In general, the leaders of the Protestant church were more enmeshed with the Nazi regime than was the case for Catholics and they were unwilling to criticise its actions.

During 1940 and 1941 some Protestant churchmen protested privately against T4, but none made any public comment. Bishop Theophil Wurm, presiding the Evangelical-Lutheran Church in Wrttemberg, wrote a strong letter to Interior Minister Frick in March 1940. In March 1940 a confidential report from the SD in Austria warned that the killing programme must be implemented with stealth "in order to avoid a probable backlash of public opinion during the war".[89] On 4 December 1940 Reinhold Sautter, Supreme Church Councillor of Wrttemberg's State Church, reproached the Nazi Ministerial Councillor Eugen Sthle for the murders in Grafeneck Castle. Stahle retorted with the Nazi government opinion, that "The fifth commandment: Thou shalt not kill, is no commandment of God but a Jewish invention" and no longer had any validity.[90]

Catholic churchmen, led by Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber of Munich, wrote privately to the government protesting against the policy. In July and August 1941, the Bishop of Mnster, August von Galen, gave three sermons criticizing the Nazi state: for arresting Jesuits, confiscating church property, and for the euthanasia program.[91] Theologian Bernhard Lichtenberg protested to the Nazis chief medical officer.[92] On 24 August the euthanasia of adults (but not children) was suspended in Germany.[91] Hitler recommended caution in Catholic areas,[citation needed] which after the annexations of Austria and the Sudetenland in 1938 included nearly half the population of Greater Germany.

Von Galen telegrammed the text of his sermon to Hitler, calling on

"the Fhrer to defend the people against the Gestapo". "It is a terrible, unjust and catastrophic thing when man opposes his will to the will of God", Galen said. "We are talking about men and women, our compatriots, our brothers and sisters. Poor unproductive people if you wish, but does this mean that they have lost their right to live?"

Historian Robert Lifton noted that the sermon might have had a greater impact than any other statement in consolidating the anti-'euthanasia' sentiment because it was dropped by British Royal Air Force pilots among German troops. Historian Henry Friedlander states that it was not the criticism from the church, but rather the loss of secrecy and "general popular disquiet about the way euthanasia was implemented" that caused the suspension of the program.[95]

Von Galen had detailed knowledge of the euthanasia program in July 1940, but did not speak out until almost a year after Protestants had begun their protest.[91] Historian Beth A. Griech-Polelle explained the caution of Von Galen and the Catholic hierarchy:

Worried lest they be classified as outsiders or internal enemies, they waited for Protestants, that is the "true Germans," to risk a confrontation with the government first. If the Protestants were able to be critical of a Nazi policy, then Catholics could function as "good" Germans and yet be critical too.[96]

Another Bishop, Franz Bornewasser of Trier, also sent protests to Hitler, though not publicly. In August Galen was even more outspoken, broadening his attack to include the Nazi persecution of religious orders and the closing of Catholic institutions. He attributed the heavy Allied bombing of Westphalian towns to the wrath of God against Germany for breaking His laws. Galen's sermons were not reported in the German press but were widely circulated in the form of illegally printed leaflets.[97] Local Nazis asked for Galen to be arrested but Goebbels told Hitler that such action would provoke open revolt in Westphalia.[98]

By August the protests had spread to Bavaria. According to Gitta Sereny, Hitler was jeered by an angry crowd at Hof the only time he was opposed in public during his 12 years of rule. Despite his private fury, Hitler knew that he could not afford a confrontation with the Church at a time when Germany was engaged in a life-and-death war, a belief which was reinforced by the advice of Goebbels, Martin Bormann, head of the Party Chancellery and SS leader Heinrich Himmler. Robert Lifton writes: "Nazi leaders faced the prospect of either having to imprison prominent, highly admired clergymen and other protesters a course with consequences in terms of adverse public reaction they greatly feared or else end the programme." Himmler said: "If operation T4 had been entrusted to the SS, things would have happened differently", because "when the Fhrer entrusts us with a job, we know how to deal with it correctly, without causing useless uproar among the people."

On 24 August 1941 Hitler ordered the cancellation of the T4 programme. He issued strict instructions to the Gauleiters to avoid further provocations of the churches for the duration of the war. The invasion of the Soviet Union in June provided new opportunities to use the T4 personnel. Many were transferred to the east to begin work on a vastly greater programme of killing: the "final solution of the Jewish question". The winding-up of the T4 programme did not end the killing of people with disabilities. From the end of 1941, the killing became less systematic. Lifton documents that the killing of adults and children continued to the end of the war, on the local initiative of institute directors and party leaders. The methods reverted to those employed before use of the gas chambers: lethal injection or starvation. Kershaw estimates that by the end of 1941 some 75,000 to 100,000 people had been killed in the T4 programme. Tens of thousands of concentration camp inmates and people judged incapable of work, were killed in Germany between 1942 and 1945. This figure does not include Jews who were deported to their deaths in Action Reinhard of 1942 and 1943. The Hartheim and Hardamar centres continued to kill people sent to them from all over Germany until 1945.[17]

After the war a series of trials was held in connection with the Nazi euthanasia programme at various places including: Dresden, Frankfurt, Graz, Nuremberg and Tbingen.

In December 1946 an American military tribunal (commonly called the Doctors' trial) prosecuted 23 doctors and administrators for their roles in war crimes and crimes against humanity. These crimes included the systematic killing of those deemed "unworthy of life", including the mentally disabled, the institutionalized mentally ill, and the physically impaired. After 140 days of proceedings, including the testimony of 85 witnesses and the submission of 1,500 documents, in August 1947 the court pronounced 16 of the defendants guilty. Seven were sentenced to death and executed on 2 June 1948. They included Dr. Karl Brandt and Viktor Brack.

The indictment read in part:

14. Between September 1939 and April 1945 the defendants Karl Brandt, Blome, Brack, and Hoven unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed crimes against humanity, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving the execution of the so called "euthanasia" program of the German Reich, in the course of which the defendants herein murder
ed hundreds of thousands of human beings, including German civilians, as well as civilians of other nations. The particulars concerning such murders are set forth in paragraph 9 of count two of this indictment and are incorporated herein by reference.[103]

Earlier, in 1945, American forces tried seven staff members of the Hadamar killing centre for the killing of Soviet and Polish nationals, which was within their jurisdiction under international law, as these were the citizens of wartime allies. (Hadamar was within the American Zone of Occupation in Germany. This was before the December 1945 Allied resolution supporting prosecution of "crimes against humanity" for such mass atrocities.) Alfons Klein, Karl Ruoff and Wilhelm Willig were sentenced to death and executed; the other four were given long prison sentences.[104] In 1946, newly reconstructed German courts tried members of the Hadamar staff for the murders of nearly 15,000 German citizens at the facility. Adolf Wahlmann and Irmgard Huber, the chief physician and the head nurse, were convicted.

The Ministry for State Security of East Germany stored around 30,000 files of the T4 project in their archives. Those files became available to the public only after the German Reunification in 1990, leading to a new wave of research on these wartime crimes.[108]

The German national memorial to the people with disabilities murdered by the Nazis was dedicated in 2014 in Berlin.[109][110] It is located in the pavement of a site next to the Tiergarten park, the location of the former villa at Tiergartenstrasse 4 in Berlin, where more than 60 Nazi bureaucrats and doctors worked in secret under the "T4" program to organize the mass murder of sanatorium and psychiatric hospital patients deemed unworthy to live.[110]

Originally posted here:

Action T4 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Euthanasia Debate

Euthanasia is defined as the practice of ending a life prematurely in order to end pain and suffering. The process is also sometimes called Mercy Killing. Euthanasia can fall into several categories. Voluntary Euthanasia is carried out with the permission of the person whose life is taken. Involuntary euthanasia is carried out without permission, such as in the case of a criminal execution. The moral and social questions surrounding these practices are the most active fields of research in Bioethics today. Many Supreme Court cases, such as Gonzales v. Oregon and Baxter vs. Montana, also surround this issue.

Voluntary euthanasia is typically performed when a person is suffering from a terminal illness and is in great pain. When the patient performs this procedure with the help of a doctor, the term assisted suicide is often used. This practice is legal in Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg. It is also legal in the state of Oregon, Washington and Montana. Passive euthanasia is carried out by terminating a medication that is keeping a patient alive or not performing a life-saving procedure. Active euthanasia involves the administration of a lethal drug or otherwise actively ending the life. These two types of procedures carry different moral and social issues.

There is a lot of controversy surrounding the issue of euthanasia and whether or not it should be legal. From a legal standpoint, the Encyclopedia of American Law categorizes mercy killing as a class of criminal homicide. Judicially, not all homicide is illegal. Killing is seen as excusable when used as a criminal punishment, but inexcusable when carried out for any other reason. In most nations, euthanasia is considered criminal homicide: however, in the jurisdictions mentioned above, it is placed on the other side of the table with criminal punishment.

Arguments regarding the euthanasia debate often depend on the method used to take the life of the patient. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act made it legal for residents to request a lethal injection from a doctor. This is seen in other jurisdictions as being a criminal form of homicide. However, passive euthanasia through denial of drugs or procedures is considered to be legal in almost all jurisdictions. Those who argue for euthanasia feel that there is no difference. Those who are against it disagree.

Many arguments also hinge on religious beliefs. Many Christians believe that taking a life, for any reason, is interfering with God's plan and is comparable to murder. The most conservative of Christians are against even passive euthanasia. Some religious people do take the other side of the argument and believe that the drugs to end suffering early are God-given and should be used.

One of the main groups of people who are involved with the euthanasia debate is physicians. One survey in the United States recorded the opinions of over 10,000 medical doctors and found that sixteen percent would consider stopping a life-maintaining therapy at the recommendation of family or the patient. Fifty five percent would never do such. The study also found that 46 percent of doctors believe that physician assisted suicide should be allowed in some cases.

The controversy surrounding euthanasia involves many aspects of religion, medical and social sciences. As this is one of the most studied fields of bioethics, one can rest assured that more studies will be performed to learn more about this issue and how to best address it.

Continued here:

Euthanasia Debate | Debate.org

Euthanasia (from Greek: -, eu, "good," , thanatos, "death") is the practice of terminating the life of a human being or animal with an incurable disease, intolerable suffering, or a possibly undignified death in a painless or minimally painful way, for the purpose of limiting suffering. It is a form of homicide; the question is whether it should be considered justifiable or criminal.

Euthanasia refers both to the situation when a substance is administered to a person with intent to kill that person or, with basically the same intent, when removing someone from life support. There may be a legal divide between making someone die and letting someone die. In some instances, the first is (in some societies) defined as murder, the other is simply allowing nature to take its course. Consequently, laws around the world vary greatly with regard to euthanasia and are constantly subject to change as cultural values shift and better palliative care or treatments become available. Thus, while euthanasia is legal in some nations, in others it is criminalized.

Of related note is the fact that suicide, or attempted suicide, is no longer a criminal offense in most states. This demonstrates that there is consent among the states to self determination, however, the majority of the states argue that assisting in suicide is illegal and punishable even when there is written consent from the individual. The problem with written consent is that it is still not sufficient to show self-determination, as it could be coerced; if active euthanasia were to become legal, a process would have to be in place to assure that the patient's consent is fully voluntary.

Euthanasia has been used with several meanings:

The term euthanasia is used only in senses (6) and (7) in this article. When other people debate about euthanasia, they could well be using it in senses (1) through (5), or with some other definition. To make this distinction clearer, two other definitions of euthanasia follow:

There can be passive, non-aggressive, and aggressive euthanasia.

James Rachels has challenged both the use and moral significance of that distinction for several reasons:

To begin with a familiar type of situation, a patient who is dying of incurable cancer of the throat is in terrible pain, which can no longer be satisfactorily alleviated. He is certain to die within a few days, even if present treatment is continued, but he does not want to go on living for those days since the pain is unbearable. So he asks the doctor for an end to it, and his family joins in this request. Suppose the doctor agrees to withhold treatment. The justification for his doing so is that the patient is in terrible agony, and since he is going to die anyway, it would be wrong to prolong his suffering needlessly. But now notice this. If one simply withholds treatment, it may take the patient longer to die, and so he may suffer more than he would if more direct action were taken and a lethal injection given. This fact provides strong reason for thinking that, once the initial decision not to prolong his agony has been made, active euthanasia is actually preferable to passive euthanasia, rather than the reverse (Rachels 1975 and 1986).

There is also involuntary, non-voluntary, and voluntary euthanasia.

Mercy killing refers to killing someone to put them out of their suffering. The killer may or may not have the informed consent of the person killed. We shall use the term mercy killing only when there is no consent. Legally, mercy killing without consent is usually treated as murder.

Murder is intentionally killing someone in an unlawful way. There are two kinds of murder:

In most parts of the world, types (1) and (2) murder are treated identically. In other parts, type (1) murder is excusable under certain special circumstances, in which case it ceases to be considered murder. Murder is, by definition, unlawful. It is a legal term, not a moral one. Whether euthanasia is murder or not is a simple question for lawyers"Will you go to jail for doing it or won't you?"

Whether euthanasia should be considered murder or not is a matter for legislators. Whether euthanasia is good or bad is a deep question for the individual citizen. A right to die and a pro life proponent could both agree "euthanasia is murder," meaning one will go to jail if he were caught doing it, but the right to die proponent would add, "but under certain circumstances, it should not be, just as it is not considered murder now in the Netherlands."

The term "euthanasia" comes from the Greek words eu and thanatos, which combined means good death. Hippocrates mentions euthanasia in the Hippocratic Oath, which was written between 400 and 300 B.C.E. The original Oath states: To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death."

Despite this, the ancient Greeks and Romans generally did not believe that life needed to be preserved at any cost and were, in consequence, tolerant of suicide in cases where no relief could be offered to the dying or, in the case of the Stoics and Epicureans, where a person no longer cared for his life.

The English Common Law from the 1300s until today also disapproved of both suicide and assisting suicide. It distinguished a suicide, who was by definition of unsound mind, from a felo-de-se or "evildoer against himself," who had coolly decided to end it all and, thereby, perpetrated an infamous crime. Such a person forfeited his entire estate to the crown. Furthermore his corpse was subjected to public indignities, such as being dragged through the streets and hung from the gallows, and was finally consigned to "ignominious burial," and, as the legal scholars put it, the favored method was beneath a crossroads with a stake driven through the body.

Since the nineteenth century, euthanasia has sparked intermittent debates and activism in North America and Europe. According to medical historian Ezekiel Emanuel, it was the availability of anesthesia that ushered in the modern era of euthanasia. In 1828, the first known anti-euthanasia law in the United States was passed in the state of New York, with many other localities and states following suit over a period of several years.

Euthanasia societies were formed in England, in 1935, and in the U.S., in 1938, to promote aggressive euthanasia. Although euthanasia legislation did not pass in the U.S. or England, in 1937, doctor-assisted euthanasia was declared legal in Switzerland as long as the person ending the life has nothing to gain. During this period, euthanasia proposals were sometimes mixed with eugenics.

While some proponents focused on voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill, others expressed interest in involuntary euthanasia for certain eugenic motivations (targeting those such as the mentally "defective"). Meanwhile, during this same era, U.S. court trials tackled cases involving critically ill people who requested physician assistance in dying as well as mercy killings, such as by parents of their severely disabled children (Kamisar 1977).

Prior to World War II, the Nazis carried out a controversial and now-condemned euthanasia program. In 1939, Nazis, in what was code named Action T4, involuntarily euthanized children under three who exhibited mental retardation, physical deformity, or other debilitating problems whom they considered "unworthy of life. This program was later extended to include older children and adults.

Leo Alexander, a judge at the Nuremberg trials after World War II, employed a "slippery slope" argument to suggest that any act of mercy killing inevitably will lead to the mass killings of unwanted persons:

The beginnings at first were a subtle shifting in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually, the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted and finally all non-Germans.

Critics of this position point to the fact that there is no relation at all between the Nazi "euthanasia" program and modern debates about euthanasia. The Nazis, after all, used the word "euthanasia" to camouflage mass murder. All victims died involuntarily, and no documented case exists where a terminal patient was voluntarily killed. The program was carried out in the closest of secrecy and under a dictatorship. One of the lessons that we should learn from this experience is that secrecy is not in the public interest.

However, due to outrage over Nazi euthanasia crimes, in the 1940s and 1950s, there was very little public support for euthanasia, especially for any involuntary, eugenics-based proposals. Catholic church leaders, among others, began speaking against euthanasia as a violation of the sanctity of life.

Nevertheless, owing to its principle of double effect, Catholic moral theology did leave room for shortening life with pain-killers and what would could be characterized as passive euthanasia (Papal statements 1956-1957). On the other hand, judges were often lenient in mercy-killing cases (Humphrey and Wickett, 1991, ch.4).

During this period, prominent proponents of euthanasia included Glanville Williams (The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law) and clergyman Joseph Fletcher ("Morals and medicine"). By the 1960s, advocacy for a right-to-die approach to voluntary euthanasia increased.

A key turning point in the debate over voluntary euthanasia (and physician-assisted dying), at least in the United States, was the public furor over the case of Karen Ann Quinlan. In 1975, Karen Ann Quinlan, for reasons still unknown, ceased breathing for several minutes. Failing to respond to mouth-to mouth resuscitation by friends she was taken by ambulance to a hospital in New Jersey. Physicians who examined her described her as being in "a chronic, persistent, vegetative state," and later it was judged that no form of treatment could restore her to cognitive life. Her father asked to be appointed her legal guardian with the expressed purpose of discontinuing the respirator which kept Karen alive. After some delay, the Supreme Court of New Jersey granted the request. The respirator was turned off. Karen Ann Quinlan remained alive but comatose until June 11, 1985, when she died at the age of 31.

In 1990, Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan physician, became infamous for encouraging and assisting people in committing suicide which resulted in a Michigan law against the practice in 1992. Kevorkian was later tried and convicted in 1999, for a murder displayed on television. Meanwhile in 1990, the Supreme Court approved the use of non-aggressive euthanasia.

Suicide or attempted suicide, in most states, is no longer a criminal offense. This demonstrates that there is consent among the states to self determination, however, the majority of the states postulate that assisting in suicide is illegal and punishable even when there is written consent from the individual. Let us now see how individual religions regard the complex subject of euthanasia.

In Catholic medical ethics, official pronouncements tend to strongly oppose active euthanasia, whether voluntary or not. Nevertheless, Catholic moral theology does allow dying to proceed without medical interventions that would be considered "extraordinary" or "disproportionate." The most important official Catholic statement is the Declaration on Euthanasia (Sacred Congregation, Vatican 1980).

The Catholic policy rests on several core principles of Catholic medical ethics, including the sanctity of human life, the dignity of the human person, concomitant human rights, and due proportionality in casuistic remedies (Ibid.).

Protestant denominations vary widely on their approach to euthanasia and physician assisted death. Since the 1970s, Evangelical churches have worked with Roman Catholics on a sanctity of life approach, though the Evangelicals may be adopting a more exceptionless opposition. While liberal Protestant denominations have largely eschewed euthanasia, many individual advocates (such as Joseph Fletcher) and euthanasia society activists have been Protestant clergy and laity. As physician assisted dying has obtained greater legal support, some liberal Protestant denominations have offered religious arguments and support for limited forms of euthanasia.

Not unlike the trend among Protestants, Jewish movements have become divided over euthanasia since the 1970s. Generally, Orthodox Jewish thinkers oppose voluntary euthanasia, often vigorously, though there is some backing for voluntary passive euthanasia in limited circumstances (Daniel Sinclair, Moshe Tendler, Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Moshe Feinstein). Likewise, within the Conservative Judaism movement, there has been increasing support for passive euthanasia. In Reform Judaism responsa, the preponderance of anti-euthanasia sentiment has shifted in recent years to increasing support for certain passive euthanasia.

In Theravada Buddhism, a monk can be expelled for praising the advantages of death, even if they simply describe the miseries of life or the bliss of the afterlife in a way that might inspire a person to commit suicide or pine away to death. In caring for the terminally ill, one is forbidden to treat a patient so as to bring on death faster than would occur if the disease were allowed to run its natural course (Buddhist Monastic Code I: Chapter 4).

In Hinduism, the Law of Karma states that any bad action happening in one lifetime will be reflected in the next. Euthanasia could be seen as murder, and releasing the Atman before its time. However, when a body is in a vegetative state, and with no quality of life, it could be seen that the Atman has already left. When avatars come down to earth they normally do so to help out humankind. Since they have already attained Moksha they choose when they want to leave.

Muslims are against euthanasia. They believe that all human life is sacred because it is given by Allah, and that Allah chooses how long each person will live. Human beings should not interfere in this. Euthanasia and suicide are not included among the reasons allowed for killing in Islam.

"Do not take life, which Allah made sacred, other than in the course of justice" (Qur'an 17:33).

"If anyone kills a personunless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the landit would be as if he killed the whole people" (Qur'an 5:32).

The Prophet said: "Amongst the nations before you there was a man who got a wound, and growing impatient (with its pain), he took a knife and cut his hand with it and the blood did not stop till he died. Allah said, 'My Slave hurried to bring death upon himself so I have forbidden him (to enter) Paradise'" (Sahih Bukhari 4.56.669).

The debate in the ethics literature on euthanasia is just as divided as the debate on physician-assisted suicide, perhaps more so. "Slippery-slope" arguments are often made, supported by claims about abuse of voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands.

Arguments against it are based on the integrity of medicine as a profession. In response, autonomy and quality-of-life-base arguments are made in support of euthanasia, underscored by claims that when the only way to relieve a dying patient's pain or suffering is terminal sedation with loss of consciousness, death is a preferable alternativean argument also made in support of physician-assisted suicide.

To summarize, there may be some circumstances when euthanasia is the morally correct action, however, one should also understand that there are real concerns about legalizing euthanasia because of fear of misuse and/or overuse and the fear of the slippery slope leading to a loss of respect for the value of life. What is needed are improvements in research, the best palliative care available, and above all, people should, perhaps, at this time begin modifying homicide laws to include motivational factors as a legitimate defense.

Just as homicide is acceptable in cases of self-defense, it could be considered acceptable if the motive is mercy. Obviously, strict parameters would have to be established that would include patients' request and approval, or, in the case of incompetent patients, advance directives in the form of a living will or family and court approval.

Mirroring this attitude, there are countries and/or statessuch as Albania (in 1999), Australia (1995), Belgium (2002), The Netherlands (2002), the U.S. state of Oregon, and Switzerland (1942)that, in one way or other, have legalized euthanasia; in the case of Switzerland, a long time ago.

In others, such as UK and U.S., discussion has moved toward ending its illegality. On November 5, 2006, Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists submitted a proposal to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics calling for consideration of permitting the euthanasia of disabled newborns. The report did not address the current illegality of euthanasia in the United Kingdom, but rather calls for reconsideration of its viability as a legitimate medical practice.

In the U.S., recent Gallup Poll surveys showed that more than 60 percent of Americans supported euthanasia (Carroll 2006; Moore 2005) and attempts to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide resulted in ballot initiatives and legislation bills within the United States in the last 20 years. For example, Washington voters saw Ballot Initiative 119 in 1991, California placed Proposition 161 on the ballot in 1992, Michigan included Proposal B in their ballot in 1998, and Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act. The United States Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of assisted suicide, in 2000, recognizing individual interests and deciding how, rather than whether they will die.

Perhaps a fitting conclusion of the subject could be the Japanese suggestion of the Law governing euthanasia:

All links retrieved May 26, 2015.

Autopsy Brain death Clinical death Euthanasia Persistent vegetative state Terminal illness

Immortality Infant mortality Legal death Maternal death Mortality rate

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

Follow this link:

Euthanasia - New World Encyclopedia

"Hot" religious topics Menu

A root cause for the desire to commit suicide is often depression. This can often be controlled with medication. If you are depressed, I strongly recommend that you seek medical help to see if your depression can be lifted.

Another cause of suicidal ideation is often intolerable levels of pain associated with a terminal illness, like cancer. Many physicians are reluctant to prescribe high levels of some pain killers out of fear that the person will become addicted to them. If you are suffering from pain in spite of medication, try insisting on better levels or types of pain killers. Recruit friends and family to intercede with your physician if you can.

If you feel overwhelmed and lack an effective support system of friends and family, consider tapping into the services of a crisis hotline. These are called by various names: distress centers, crisis centers, suicide prevention centers, etc. Their telephone numbers can often be found in the first page(s) of your telephone directory. If you cannot find a number for a center in your area, try phoning directory assistance at 4-1-1.

In the United States, you can call 1-800-273-TALK. See: http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org/ They will direct you to a crisis center in your area.

U.S. Crisis Center map

Crisis centers/distress centers/ etc are often confidential services that you can phone up at any time of the day or night for support. You can usually remain anonymous.

Wikipedia lists suicide crisis lines for many countries from Australia to the United States at: https://en.wikipedia.org/ Although these lines are often called "suicide prevention lines" or "crisis lines." most of the people calling are not suicidal, not in crisis, but are in distress. So, don't be reluctant to call them because you are not suicidal or in crisis.

Sponsored link.

Throughout North America, committing suicide or attempting to commit suicide is no longer a criminal offense. However, helping another person commit suicide is generally considered a criminal act. A few exceptions are:

There were four failed ballot initiatives between 1991 and 2000:

Between 1994 and 2016, there have been in excess of 75 legislative bills to legalize PAS in at least 21 states. Almost all failed to become law. 4

The author of this section is approaching his 80th birthday and is in good health. To him, end of life issues have taken on a personal aspect. Being an Agnostic, he doubts the existence of an afterlife. He does not fear death. He does not fear being dead. However, he has considerable fear about the process of dying, For many people in North America is an agonizingly painful and lengthy process during which time one's enjoyment of life often drops to zero and becomes negative without any hope that it will return to positive territory. Fortunately for him, he lives in Canada which -- like all other developed countries except for the U.S. -- has universal health care. So he will receive competent medical attention. Unfortunately, pain management is often as poorly managed in Canada as it is in the U.S. He regards suicide as a civil right and would prefer that he have access to a means of suicide if life becomes unbearable. He thus strongly supports legalizing physician assisted suicide.

He is critical of PAS laws that have been passed to date because they generally give access to assisted dying only to terminally ill people who are expected to die in the near future of natural causes. They do not do anything for people who experience chronic, overwhelming pain with no hope of relief for years.

He has attempted to remain impartial, objective and fair while writing these essays.

Site navigation:

See the article here:

Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide - All sides

There are arguments both for and against euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Some of the main arguments are outlined below. You should be aware that these arguments do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of NHS Choices or the Department of Health.

There are twomain types of argument used to support the practices of euthanasia and assisted suicide. They are the:

These arguments are discussed in more detail below.

The ethical argument states thateveryone should beable to choose when and how they want to die, and that they should be able to do so with dignity.

The concept of "quality of life" is an important aspect of this argument. The idea put forward as part of the religious argument against euthanasia and assisted suicide (see below)that life is sacred and is therefore alwaysbetter than deathis rejected. The ethical argumentsuggests that life should only continue as long as a person feels their life is worth living.

For example, someone who supports the use ofeuthanasia or assisted suicide based on the ethical argument may believe that a person should be able to choose to end their life if they are living in intolerable pain and their quality of life is severely diminished.

The pragmatic argument states that many of the practices used inend of life care are a type of euthanasia in all but name.

For example, there is the practice of making a "do not attemptcardiopulmonary resuscitation" (DNACPR)order, where a person requests not to receive treatment if their heart stops beating or they stop breathing.

Critics have argued that DNACPR is a type of passive euthanasia, because a person is denied treatment that could potentially save their life.

Another controversial practice is known as palliative sedation. This is where a person who is experiencing extreme suffering, for which there is no effective treatment, is put to sleep using sedative medication. Palliative sedation is often used to treat burns victims who are expected to die.

While palliative sedation is not directly carried out for the purpose of ending lives, many of the sedatives used carry a risk of speeding up death. Therefore, itcould be argued that palliative sedation is a type of active euthanasia.

The pragmatic argument is that if euthanasia in these forms is being carried outanyway, society might as well legalise it and ensure that it is properly regulated.

It should be stressed, however,that the above interpretations of DNACPR and palliative sedation are very controversial and are not accepted by most doctors, nurses and palliative care specialists.

Read more about thealternatives to euthanasia for responses to these interpretations.

There are four main types of argument used by people who are againsteuthanasia and assisted suicide. They are known as the:

These arguments are described in more detail below.

The most common religious argument is that human beings are the sacred creation of God, so human life is, by extension, sacred.This is known as the "sanctity of life".

Only God should choose when a human life ends, so committing an act of euthanasia or assisting in suicide is acting against the will of God and is sinful.

This beliefor variations of itis shared by many members of the Christian, Jewish and Islamic faiths, although some individuals may personally feel that there are occasions when quality of life becomes more important than sanctity of life.

The issue is more complex in Hinduism and Buddhism.Scholars from both faiths have argued that euthanasia and assisted suicide are ethically acceptable acts in some circumstances, but these views do not have universal support among Hindus and Buddhists.

Some non-religious people may also have similar beliefs based on the view that permitting euthanasia and assisted suicide "devalues" life.

The slippery slope argument is based on the idea that once a healthcare service, and by extension the government, starts killing its own citizens, a line is crossed that should never have been crossed, and a dangerous precedent has been set.

The concern is that a society that allows voluntary euthanasia will gradually change its attitudes to include non-voluntary and then involuntary euthanasia.

Legalised voluntary euthanasia could eventually lead to a wide range of unforeseen consequences, such as the following:

The medical ethics argument,which is similar to the "slippery slope" argument,states that legalising euthanasia would violate one of the most important medical ethics, which, in the words of the International Code of Medical Ethics, is: "A physician shall always bear in mind the obligation to respect human life".

Asking doctors to abandon their obligation to preserve human life could damage the doctor-patient relationship.Hastening death on a regular basis could become a routine administrative task for doctors, leading to a lack of compassion when dealing with elderly, disabled or terminally ill people.

In turn, people with complex health needs or severe disabilities could become distrustful of their doctors efforts and intentions. They may think thattheir doctor would rather "kill them off" than take responsibility for a complex and demanding case.

The alternative argument is that advances in palliative care and mental health treatment mean there is no reason why any person should ever feel that they are suffering intolerably, whether it is physical or mental suffering, or both.

According to this argument,if a person is giventhe right care, in the right environment, there should be no reason why they are unable tohave a dignified and painless natural death.

Page last reviewed: 11/08/2014

Next review due: 11/08/2017

Read this article:

Euthanasia and assisted suicide - Arguments - NHS Choices

Historical Examples

Illstarred heresiarch' In a Greek watercloset he breathed his last: euthanasia.

When I am too old to work and ready for euthanasia I shall have you come and talk me to death.

In August, 1900, came the euthanasia for which he had longed.

People did not deplore the dead warrior, but admired his euthanasia.

It was here that one enthusiast achieved a fisherman's euthanasia, for he dropped dead suddenly in the very act of playing a fish.

British Dictionary definitions for euthanasia Expand

the act of killing someone painlessly, esp to relieve suffering from an incurable illness Also called mercy killing

Word Origin

C17: via New Latin from Greek: easy death, from eu- + thanatos death

Word Origin and History for euthanasia Expand

c.1600, from Greek euthanasia "an easy or happy death," from eu- "good" (see eu-) + thanatos "death" (see thanatology). Sense of "legally sanctioned mercy killing" is first recorded in English 1869.

euthanasia in Medicine Expand

euthanasia euthanasia (y'th-n'zh, -zh-) n.

The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.

A quiet, painless death.

euthanasia in Science Expand

euthanasia in Culture Expand

Painlessly putting someone to death usually someone with an incurable and painful disease; mercy killing.

See original here:

Euthanasia | Define Euthanasia at Dictionary.com

This article is about euthanasia of humans. For mercy killings performed on other animals, see Animal euthanasia.

Euthanasia (from Greek: ; "good death": , eu; "well" or "good" , thanatos; "death") is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.[1]

There are different euthanasia laws in each country. The British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering".[2] In the Netherlands and Flanders, euthanasia is understood as "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient".[3]

Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries. Non-voluntary euthanasia (patient's consent unavailable) is illegal in all countries. Involuntary euthanasia (without asking consent or against the patient's will) is also illegal in all countries and is usually considered murder.[4] As of 2006, euthanasia is the most active area of research in contemporary bioethics.[5]

In some countries there is a divisive public controversy over the moral, ethical, and legal issues of euthanasia. Those who are against euthanasia may argue for the sanctity of life, while proponents of euthanasia rights emphasize alleviating suffering, and preserving bodily integrity, self-determination, and personal autonomy.[6] Jurisdictions where euthanasia is legal include the Netherlands, Canada,[7]Colombia, Belgium, and Luxembourg.

Like other terms borrowed from history, "euthanasia" has had different meanings depending on usage. The first apparent usage of the term "euthanasia" belongs to the historian Suetonius, who described how the Emperor Augustus, "dying quickly and without suffering in the arms of his wife, Livia, experienced the 'euthanasia' he had wished for."[8] The word "euthanasia" was first used in a medical context by Francis Bacon in the 17th century, to refer to an easy, painless, happy death, during which it was a "physician's responsibility to alleviate the 'physical sufferings' of the body." Bacon referred to an "outward euthanasia"the term "outward" he used to distinguish from a spiritual conceptthe euthanasia "which regards the preparation of the soul."[9]

In current usage, euthanasia has been defined as the "painless inducement of a quick death".[10] However, it is argued that this approach fails to properly define euthanasia, as it leaves open a number of possible actions which would meet the requirements of the definition, but would not be seen as euthanasia. In particular, these include situations where a person kills another, painlessly, but for no reason beyond that of personal gain; or accidental deaths that are quick and painless, but not intentional.[11][12]

Another approach incorporates the notion of suffering into the definition.[11] The definition offered by the Oxford English Dictionary incorporates suffering as a necessary condition, with "the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma",[13] This approach is included in Marvin Khol and Paul Kurtz's definition of it as "a mode or act of inducing or permitting death painlessly as a relief from suffering".[14] Counterexamples can be given: such definitions may encompass killing a person suffering from an incurable disease for personal gain (such as to claim an inheritance), and commentators such as Tom Beauchamp and Arnold Davidson have argued that doing so would constitute "murder simpliciter" rather than euthanasia.[11]

The third element incorporated into many definitions is that of intentionality the death must be intended, rather than being accidental, and the intent of the action must be a "merciful death".[11] Michael Wreen argued that "the principal thing that distinguishes euthanasia from intentional killing simpliciter is the agent's motive: it must be a good motive insofar as the good of the person killed is concerned."[15] Similarly, Heather Draper speaks to the importance of motive, arguing that "the motive forms a crucial part of arguments for euthanasia, because it must be in the best interests of the person on the receiving end."[12] Definitions such as that offered by the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics take this path, where euthanasia is defined as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering."[2] Beauchamp and Davidson also highlight Baruch Brody's "an act of euthanasia is one in which one person... (A) kills another person (B) for the benefit of the second person, who actually does benefit from being killed".[16]

Draper argued that any definition of euthanasia must incorporate four elements: an agent and a subject; an intention; a causal proximity, such that the actions of the agent lead to the outcome; and an outcome. Based on this, she offered a definition incorporating those elements, stating that euthanasia "must be defined as death that results from the intention of one person to kill another person, using the most gentle and painless means possible, that is motivated solely by the best interests of the person who dies."[17] Prior to Draper, Beauchamp and Davidson had also offered a definition that includes these elements. Their definition specifically discounts fetuses in order to distinguish between abortions and euthanasia:[18]

"In summary, we have argued... that the death of a human being, A, is an instance of euthanasia if and only if (1) A's death is intended by at least one other human being, B, where B is either the cause of death or a causally relevant feature of the event resulting in death (whether by action or by omission); (2) there is either sufficient current evidence for B to believe that A is acutely suffering or irreversibly comatose, or there is sufficient current evidence related to A's present condition such that one or more known causal laws supports B's belief that A will be in a condition of acute suffering or irreversible comatoseness; (3) (a) B's primary reason for intending A's death is cessation of A's (actual or predicted future) suffering or irreversible comatoseness, where B does not intend A's death for a different primary reason, though there may be other relevant reasons, and (b) there is sufficient current evidence for either A or B that causal means to A's death will not produce any more suffering than would be produced for A if B were not to intervene; (4) the causal means to the event of A's death are chosen by A or B to be as painless as possible, unless either A or B has an overriding reason for a more painful causal means, where the reason for choosing the latter causal means does not conflict with the evidence in 3b; (5) A is a nonfetal organism."[19]

Wreen, in part responding to Beauchamp and Davidson, offered a six-part definition:

"Person A committed an act of euthanasia if and only if (1) A killed B or let her die; (2) A intended to kill B; (3) the intention specified in (2) was at least partial cause of the action specified in (1); (4) the causal journey from the intention specified in (2) to the action specified in (1) is more or less in accordance with A's plan of action; (5) A's killing of B is a voluntary action; (6) the motive for the action specified in (1), the motive standing behind the intention specified in (2), is the good of the person killed."[20]

Wreen also considered a seventh requirement: "(7) The good specified in (6) is, or at least includes, the avoidance of evil", although as Wreen noted in the paper, he was not convinced that the restriction was required.[21]

In discussing his definition, Wreen noted the difficulty of justifying euthanasia when faced with the notion of the subject's "right to life". In response, Wreen argued that euthanasia has to be voluntary, and that "involuntary euthanasia is, as such, a great wrong".[21] Other commentators incorporate consent more directly into their definitions. For example, in a discussion of euthanasia presented in 2003 by the European Association of Palliative Care (EPAC) Ethics Task Force, the authors offered: "Medicalized killing of a person without the person's consent, whether nonvoluntary (where the person in unable to consent) or involuntary (against the person's will) is not euthanasia: it is murder. Hence, euthanasia can be voluntary only."[22] Although the EPAC Ethics Task Force argued that both non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia could not be included in the definition of euthanasia, there is discussion in the literature about excluding one but not the other.[21]

Euthanasia may be classified according to whether a person gives informed consent into three types: voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary.[23][24]

There is a debate within the medical and bioethics literature about whether or not the non-voluntary (and by extension, involuntary) killing of patients can be regarded as euthanasia, irrespective of intent or the patient's circumstances. In the definitions offered by Beauchamp and Davidson and, later, by Wreen, consent on the part of the patient was not considered as one of their criteria, although it may have been required to justify euthanasia.[11][25] However, others see consent as essential.

Euthanasia conducted with the consent of the patient is termed voluntary euthanasia. Active voluntary euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Passive voluntary euthanasia is legal throughout the U.S. per Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. When the patient brings about his or her own death with the assistance of a physician, the term assisted suicide is often used instead. Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland and the U.S. states of California, Oregon, Washington, Montana and Vermont.

Euthanasia conducted when the consent of the patient is unavailable is termed non-voluntary euthanasia. Examples include child euthanasia, which is illegal worldwide but decriminalised under certain specific circumstances in the Netherlands under the Groningen Protocol.

Euthanasia conducted against the will of the patient is termed involuntary euthanasia.

Voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia can all be further divided into passive or active variants.[26] Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments, such as antibiotics, necessary for the continuance of life.[2] Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces, such as administering a lethal injection, to kill and is the most controversial means. A number of authors consider these terms to be misleading and unhelpful.[2]

According to the historian N. D. A. Kemp, the origin of the contemporary debate on euthanasia started in 1870.[27] Euthanasia is known to have been debated and practiced long before that date. Euthanasia was practiced in Ancient Greece and Rome: for example, hemlock was employed as a means of hastening death on the island of Kea, a technique also employed in Marseilles. Euthanasia, in the sense of the deliberate hastening of a person's death, was supported by Socrates, Plato and Seneca the Elder in the ancient world, although Hippocrates appears to have spoken against the practice, writing "I will not prescribe a deadly drug to please someone, nor give advice that may cause his death" (noting there is some debate in the literature about whether or not this was intended to encompass euthanasia).[28][29][30]

The term "euthanasia" in the earlier sense of supporting someone as they died was used for the first time by Francis Bacon (1561-1626). In his work, Euthanasia medica, he chose this ancient Greek word and, in doing so, distinguished between euthanasia interior, the preparation of the soul for death, and euthanasia exterior, which was intended to make the end of life easier and painless, in exceptional circumstances by shortening life. That the ancient meaning of an easy death came to the fore again in the early modern period can be seen from its definition in the 18th century Zedlers Universallexikon:

The concept of euthanasia in the sense of alleviating the process of death goes back to the medical historian, Karl Friedrich Heinrich Marx, who drew on Bacon's philosophical ideas. According to Marx, a doctor had a moral duty to ease the suffering of death through encouragement, support and mitigation using medication. Such an "alleviation of death" reflected the contemporary Zeitgeist, but was brought into the medical canon of responsibility for the first time by Marx. Marx also stressed the distinction between the theological care of the soul of sick people from the physical care and medical treatment by doctors.[32][33]

Euthanasia in its modern sense has always been strongly opposed in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Thomas Aquinas opposed both and argued that the practice of euthanasia contradicted our natural human instincts of survival,[34] as did Francois Ranchin (15651641), a French physician and professor of medicine, and Michael Boudewijns (16011681), a physician and teacher.[29]:208[35] Other voices argued for euthanasia, such as John Donne in 1624,[36] and euthanasia continued to be practised. In 1678, the publication of Caspar Questel's De pulvinari morientibus non subtrahend, ("On the pillow of which the dying should not be deprived"), initiated debate on the topic. Questel described various customs which were employed at the time to hasten the death of the dying, (including the sudden removal of a pillow, which was believed to accelerate death), and argued against their use, as doing so was "against the laws of God and Nature".[29]:209211 This view was shared by many who followed, including Philipp Jakob Spener, Veit Riedlin and Johann Georg Krnitz.[29]:211 Despite opposition, euthanasia continued to be practised, involving techniques such as bleeding, suffocation, and removing people from their beds to be placed on the cold ground.[29]:211214

Suicide and euthanasia became more accepted during the Age of Enlightenment.[35]Thomas More wrote of euthanasia in Utopia, although it is not clear if More was intending to endorse the practice.[29]:208209 Other cultures have taken different approaches: for example, in Japan suicide has not traditionally been viewed as a sin, as it is used in cases of honor, and accordingly, the perceptions of euthanasia are different from those in other parts of the world.[37]

In the mid-1800s, the use of morphine to treat "the pains of death" emerged, with John Warren recommending its use in 1848. A similar use of chloroform was revealed by Joseph Bullar in 1866. However, in neither case was it recommended that the use should be to hasten death. In 1870 Samuel Williams, a schoolteacher, initiated the contemporary euthanasia debate through a speech given at the Birmingham Speculative Club in England, which was subsequently published in a one-off publication entitled Essays of the Birmingham Speculative Club, the collected works of a number of members of an amateur philosophical society.[38]:794 Williams' proposal was to use chloroform to deliberately hasten the death of terminally ill patients:

That in all cases of hopeless and painful illness, it should be the recognized duty of the medical attendant, whenever so desired by the patient, to administer choloroform or such other anaesthetic as may by-and-bye supersede chloroform so as to destroy consciousness at once, and put the sufferer to a quick and painless death; all needful precautions being adopted to prevent any possible abuse of such duty; and means being taken to establish, beyond the possibility of doubt or question, that the remedy was applied at the express wish of the patient.

The essay was favourably reviewed in The Saturday Review, but an editorial against the essay appeared in The Spectator.[27] From there it proved to be influential, and other writers came out in support of such views: Lionel Tollemache wrote in favour of euthanasia, as did Annie Besant, the essayist and reformer who later became involved with the National Secular Society, considering it a duty to society to "die voluntarily and painlessly" when one reaches the point of becoming a 'burden'.[27][39]Popular Science analyzed the issue in May 1873, assessing both sides of the argument.[40] Kemp notes that at the time, medical doctors did not participate in the discussion; it was "essentially a philosophical enterprise... tied inextricably to a number of objections to the Christian doctrine of the sanctity of human life".[27]

The rise of the euthanasia movement in the United States coincided with the so-called Gilded Age, a time of social and technological change that encompassed an "individualistic conservatism that praised laissez-faire economics, scientific method, and rationalism", along with major depressions, industrialisation and conflict between corporations and labour unions.[38]:794 It was also the period in which the modern hospital system was developed, which has been seen as a factor in the emergence of the euthanasia debate.[41]

Robert Ingersoll argued for euthanasia, stating in 1894 that where someone is suffering from a terminal illness, such as terminal cancer, they should have a right to end their pain through suicide. Felix Adler offered a similar approach, although, unlike Ingersoll, Adler did not reject religion. In fact, he argued from an Ethical Culture framework. In 1891, Alder argued that those suffering from overwhelming pain should have the right to commit suicide, and, furthermore, that it should be permissible for a doctor to assist thus making Adler the first "prominent American" to argue for suicide in cases where people were suffering from chronic illness.[42] Both Ingersoll and Adler argued for voluntary euthanasia of adults suffering from terminal ailments.[42] Dowbiggin argues that by breaking down prior moral objections to euthanasia and suicide, Ingersoll and Adler enabled others to stretch the definition of euthanasia.[43]

The first attempt to legalise euthanasia took place in the United States, when Henry Hunt introduced legislation into the General Assembly of Ohio in 1906.[44]:614 Hunt did so at the behest of Anna Hall, a wealthy heiress who was a major figure in the euthanasia movement during the early 20th century in the United States. Hall had watched her mother die after an extended battle with liver cancer, and had dedicated herself to ensuring that others would not have to endure the same suffering. Towards this end she engaged in an extensive letter writing campaign, recruited Lurana Sheldon and Maud Ballington Booth, and organised a debate on euthanasia at the annual meeting of the American Humane Association in 1905 described by Jacob Appel as the first significant public debate on the topic in the 20th century.[44]:614616

Hunt's bill called for the administration of an anesthetic to bring about a patient's death, so long as the person is of lawful age and sound mind, and was suffering from a fatal injury, an irrevocable illness, or great physical pain. It also required that the case be heard by a physician, required informed consent in front of three witnesses, and required the attendance of three physicians who had to agree that the patient's recovery was impossible. A motion to reject the bill outright was voted down, but the bill failed to pass, 79 to 23.[38]:796[44]:618619

Along with the Ohio euthanasia proposal, in 1906 Assemblyman Ross Gregory introduced a proposal to permit euthanasia to the Iowa legislature. However, the Iowa legislation was far broader in scope than that offered in Ohio. It allowed for the death of any person of at least ten years of age who suffered from an ailment that would prove fatal and cause extreme pain, should they be of sound mind and express a desire to artificially hasten their death. In addition, it allowed for infants to be euthanised if they were sufficiently deformed, and permitted guardians to request euthanasia on behalf of their wards. The proposed legislation also imposed penalties on physicians who refused to perform euthanasia when requested: a 612 month prison term and a fine of between $200 and $1000. The proposal proved to be controversial.[44]:619621 It engendered considerable debate and failed to pass, having been withdrawn from consideration after being passed to the Committee on Public Health.[44]:623

After 1906 the euthanasia debate reduced in intensity, resurfacing periodically but not returning to the same level of debate until the 1930s in the United Kingdom.[38]:796

The Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Society was founded in 1935 by Charles Killick Millard (now called Dignity in Dying). The movement campaigned for the legalisation of euthanasia in Great Britain.

In January 1936, King George V was given a fatal dose of morphine and cocaine in order to hasten his death. At the time he was suffering from cardio-respiratory failure, and the decision to end his life was made by his physician, Lord Dawson.[45] Although this event was kept a secret for over 50 years, the death of George V coincided with proposed legislation in the House of Lords to legalise euthanasia. The legislation came through the British Volunteer Euthanasia Legalisation Society.[46]

Euthanasia opponent Ian Dowbiggin argues that the early membership of the Euthanasia Society of America (ESA) reflected how many perceived euthanasia at the time, often seeing it as a eugenics matter rather than an issue concerning individual rights.[42] Dowbiggin argues that not every eugenist joined the ESA "solely for eugenic reasons", but he postulates that there were clear ideological connections between the eugenics and euthanasia movements.[42]

A 24 July 1939 killing of a severely disabled infant in Nazi Germany was described in a BBC "Genocide Under the Nazis Timeline" as the first "state-sponsored euthanasia".[47] Parties that consented to the killing included Hitler's office, the parents, and the Reich Committee for the Scientific Registration of Serious and Congenitally Based Illnesses.[47]The Telegraph noted that the killing of the disabled infantwhose name was Gerhard Kretschmar, born blind, with missing limbs, subject to convulsions, and reportedly "an idiot" provided "the rationale for a secret Nazi decree that led to 'mercy killings' of almost 300,000 mentally and physically handicapped people".[48] While Kretchmar's killing received parental consent, most of the 5,000 to 8,000 children killed afterwards were forcibly taken from their parents.[47][48]

The "euthanasia campaign" of mass murder gathered momentum on 14 January 1940 when the "handicapped" were killed with gas vans and killing centres, eventually leading to the deaths of 70,000 adult Germans.[49] Professor Robert Jay Lifton, author of The Nazi Doctors and a leading authority on the T4 program, contrasts this program with what he considers to be a genuine euthanasia. He explains that the Nazi version of "euthanasia" was based on the work of Adolf Jost, who published The Right to Death (Das Recht auf den Tod) in 1895. Lifton writes: "Jost argued that control over the death of the individual must ultimately belong to the social organism, the state. This concept is in direct opposition to the Anglo-American concept of euthanasia, which emphasizes the individual's 'right to die' or 'right to death' or 'right to his or her own death,' as the ultimate human claim. In contrast, Jost was pointing to the state's right to kill.... Ultimately the argument was biological: 'The rights to death [are] the key to the fitness of life.' The state must own deathmust killin order to keep the social organism alive and healthy."[50]

In modern terms, the use of "euthanasia" in the context of Action T4 is seen to be a euphemism to disguise a program of genocide, in which people were killed on the grounds of "disabilities, religious beliefs, and discordant individual values".[51] Compared to the discussions of euthanasia that emerged post-war, the Nazi program may have been worded in terms that appear similar to the modern use of "euthanasia", but there was no "mercy" and the patients were not necessarily terminally ill.[51] Despite these differences, historian and euthanasia opponent Ian Dowbiggin writes that "the origins of Nazi euthanasia, like those of the American euthanasia movement, predate the Third Reich and were intertwined with the history of eugenics and Social Darwinism, and with efforts to discredit traditional morality and ethics."[42]:65

On January 6, 1949, the Euthanasia Society of America presented to the New York State Legislature a petition to legalize euthanasia, signed by 379 leading Protestant and Jewish ministers, the largest group of religious leaders ever to have taken this stance. A similar petition had been sent to the New York State Legislature in 1947, signed by approximately 1,000 New York physicians. Catholic religious leaders criticized the petition, saying that such a bill would "legalize a suicide-murder pact" and a "rationalization of the fifth commandment of God, 'Though Shalt Not Kill.'"[52] The Right Reverend Robert E. McCormick stated that

"The ultimate object of the Euthanasia Society is based on the Totalitarian principle that the state is supreme and that the individual does not have the right to live if his continuance in life is a burden or hindrance to the state. The Nazis followed this principle and compulsory Euthanasia was practiced as a part of their program during the recent war. We American citizens of New York State must ask ourselves this question: 'Are we going to finish Hitler's job?'"[52]

The petition brought tensions between the American Euthanasia Society and the Catholic Church to a head that contributed to a climate of anti-Catholic sentiment generally regarding issues such as birth control, eugenics, and population control.[42]

The petition did not lead to a law.

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: a) that people have a right to self-determination, and thus should be allowed to choose their own fate; b) assisting a subject to die might be a better choice than requiring that they continue to suffer; c) the distinction between passive euthanasia, which is often permitted, and active euthanasia, which is not substantive (or that the underlying principlethe doctrine of double effectis unreasonable or unsound); and d) permitting euthanasia will not necessarily lead to unacceptable consequences. Pro-euthanasia activists often point to countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, and states like Oregon, where euthanasia has been legalized, to argue that it is mostly unproblematic.

Similarly, Emanuel argues that there are four major arguments presented by opponents of euthanasia: a) not all deaths are painful; b) alternatives, such as cessation of active treatment, combined with the use of effective pain relief, are available; c) the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is morally significant; and d) legalising euthanasia will place society on a slippery slope,[53] which will lead to unacceptable consequences.[38]:7978 In fact, in Oregon, in 2013, pain wasn't one of the top five reasons people sought euthanasia. Top reasons were a loss of dignity, and a fear of burdening others.[54]

In the United States in 2013, 47% nationwide supported doctor-assisted suicide. This included 32% of Latinos, 29% of African-Americans, and almost nobody with disabilities.[54]

West's Encyclopedia of American Law states that "a 'mercy killing' or euthanasia is generally considered to be a criminal homicide"[55] and is normally used as a synonym of homicide committed at a request made by the patient.[56]

The judicial sense of the term "homicide" includes any intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, even to relieve intractable suffering.[56][57][58] Not all homicide is unlawful.[59] Two designations of homicide that carry no criminal punishment are justifiable and excusable homicide.[59] In most countries this is not the status of euthanasia. The term "euthanasia" is usually confined to the active variety; the University of Washington website states that "euthanasia generally means that the physician would act directly, for instance by giving a lethal injection, to end the patient's life".[60]Physician-assisted suicide is thus not classified as euthanasia by the US State of Oregon, where it is legal under the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, and despite its name, it is not legally classified as suicide either.[61] Unlike physician-assisted suicide, withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatments with patient consent (voluntary) is almost unanimously considered, at least in the United States, to be legal.[62] The use of pain medication in order to relieve suffering, even if it hastens death, has been held as legal in several court decisions.[60]

Some governments around the world have legalized voluntary euthanasia but most commonly it is still considered to be criminal homicide. In the Netherlands and Belgium, where euthanasia has been legalized, it still remains homicide although it is not prosecuted and not punishable if the perpetrator (the doctor) meets certain legal conditions.[63][64][65][66]

A survey in the United States of more than 10,000 physicians came to the result that approximately 16% of physicians would ever consider halting life-sustaining therapy because the family demands it, even if they believed that it was premature. Approximately 55% would not, and for the remaining 29%, it would depend on circumstances.[67]

This study also stated that approximately 46% of physicians agree that physician-assisted suicide should be allowed in some cases; 41% do not, and the remaining 14% think it depends.[67]

In the United Kingdom, the pro-assisted dying group Dignity in Dying cite conflicting research on attitudes by doctors to assisted dying: with a 2009 Palliative Medicine-published survey showing 64% support (to 34% oppose) for assisted dying in cases where a patient has an incurable and painful disease, while 49% of doctors in a study published in BMC Medical Ethics oppose changing the law on assisted dying to 39% in favour.[68]

Read more from the original source:

Euthanasia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many people have diseases that cause pain, or that make them suffer. Ending the lives of these people to take away their suffering is called euthanasia. This is sometimes regarded as different from assisted suicide, which is where someone helps another person to kill themselves. It is also different to murder, where the intent is not to end the person's suffering, but to kill them for the killer's own ends. Euthanasia can be voluntary, where the person who dies specifically asks for help in ending their life. There are cases, where the person is not able to say that they do, or do not, wish to die. These cases are usually called non-voluntary euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia, where someone is killed against their will, is generally regarded as murder.

Euthanasia is illegal in most countries. It is permitted in a small number of countries, such as the Netherlands and Belgium. Where it is permitted it is very tightly regulated, and it is only permitted in cases where the patient is terminally ill.

When discussing euthanasia, euthanasia is generally separated into active and passive euthanasia, and voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Many people see important differences between these different types of euthanasia, so that they can accept some types but not others.

Passive euthanasia can be described as "letting die". When passive euthanasia occurs, a terminally ill person is allowed to die, even though treatment could have allowed them to live longer. Examples of passive euthanasia include removing life support from a patient, (such as a ventilator which is being used to keep the person alive), or not providing a patient with food or water. Active euthanasia, on the other hand, involves deliberately acting to end a person's life. This may occur through giving them an injection of a drug that will kill them, or by giving them pills that will result in their death.[1]

Some people see passive euthanasia as a more acceptable choice, because it does not involve a deliberate act to kill. However, others argue that once someone has decided to allow another person to die, they should make it as fast and as painless as possible, and act to bring about their death.[2]

If someone asks to be allowed to die, or if they ask to be killed, then they have asked for voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is often seen as the best by people who believe in euthanasia, because it is clear that the person wants to die. If the person can not say that they wish to die, but people think that they would ask to die if they could, then it is non-voluntary euthanasia. Non-voluntary euthanasia is sometimes a choice for people who are in a coma or who are very young, as they can not say what they want to do. Involuntary euthansia is when someone is killed even though they asked not to die, or when they could have asked to die but did not.[3] Many people do not think that this is euthanasia. Instead they think that it is murder.[4]

The types of euthanasia, active/passive and voluntary/non-voluntary/involuntary can be put together. If someone asks to die, and another person gives them an injection that will kill them, then it is active voluntary euthanasia. But if someone is in a coma and is only alive because of a ventilator, and the doctors turn the ventilator off and they die, then it would be passive non-voluntary euthanasia.[5]

Some people believe that euthanasia should be allowed, and some people think that it should not be allowed.

Even if euthanasia is not a bad thing, some people believe that allowing euthanasia will result in bad things happening. If euthanasia is allowed to happen for people asking to die, people might then think that it is ok to allow euthanasia for people who are very sick but are not able to ask to die. And if that was allowed, then maybe they would allow euthanasia for people who are very sick and will not recover, but do not want to die. This is called the "slippery slope" argument.[6]

People who believe in the slippery slope argument point to times when this seems to have happened. In Germany, Adolf Hitler allowed disabled children to be killed, and called it euthanasia. People today agree that what Hitler did was very wrong, but some people think that if euthanasia was allowed it would lead to similar things happening again. So they think that it would be too big a risk to allow euthanasia at all.[6]

Other people say that this is wrong. There is a big difference between killing someone who is very sick, in pain, and asks to die, and killing a child just because they have a disability. They say that it is not true that allowing euthanasia will lead to bad things. They also say that what Hitler did was not euthanasia, and did not happen because they allowed euthanasia.[6]

Palliative care is when people who are ill are given special care to make them more comfortable. In regard to euthanasia, palliative care can be given to patients who are dying. It may include hospice care, when the patient is sent to a special hospital that is just for people who are dying, and which is meant to make their death as comfortable as possible. Palliative care can involve pain relief and help for the patient and family to come to terms with death. In some cases, doctors will give patient drugs which make them stay asleep, so that they will not feel pain.[7][8]

Palliative care is not perfect, and so it is not always seen as a replacement for euthanasia. There is still some pain, and there can be other side-effects, where the patient can still feel very sick. Palliative care is not available for all people, and not all people who wish to die through euthanasia are sick so that they will die soon some people have healthy bodies, but they are suffering in other ways, and palliative care will not always help them.[6]

The principle of double effect was first described by Thomas Aquinas over 700 years ago. It says that it is sometimes ok to do something even if a bad thing will happen if a good thing also happens, and if it was the good thing that they wanted.[9] Aquinas used the example of self defense: sometimes when they are attacked a person will kill the attacker, but the death of the attacker was not what the person was trying to do. They only wanted to protect themselves. So even though killing someone is bad, what they wanted to do protect themselves was not.[10]

Some people say that doctors may treat a person in order to reduce the pain that they are suffering, but that as a result the person will die sooner. If the doctor gives the treatment in order to help the patient die, then it is euthanasia. But if the doctor gives the treatment in order to stop the pain, and does not intend for the patient to die, then it may not be euthanasia, even if the doctor knew that the treatment would kill the patient.[10]

Suicide is when a person kills themselves. Sometimes when a person is very sick they need help to die, and if someone helps them to kill themselves, it is called assisted suicide.[11] In some countries people are allowed to help someone to kill themselves, so long as they do not kill the person,[12] and it can be seen as a more acceptable option because it must be the person's own decision.[11] Because a second person did not kill the other person, it is not always considered to be euthanasia, as some people see an important difference between someone killing themselves and someone killing another person, and they believe that euthanasia is only when a second person kills the first.[6]

View original post here:

Euthanasia - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the rights of the terminal, or hopelessly physically ill, competent adult http://www.assistedsuicide.org

Controversy in Oregon about the best term to describe how a doctor helps a terminally ill person to die under the Oregon Death With Dignity Act (1994) set me thinking about all the terms we use to describe ways of dying and death. The row in Oregon is between people on the choice side who abhor words like suicide, euthanasia, and Hemlock, while on the anti-choice side they want the foregoing words to be clearly spelled out because, they think, it helps their opposing case. Read more ...

In a spirit of compassion for all, this manifesto proclaims that every competent adult has the incontestable right to humankinds ultimate civil and personal liberty -- the right to die in a manner and at a time of their own choosing. Whereas modern medicine has brought great benefits to humanity, it cannot entirely solve the pain and distress of the dying process. Read more ...

Controversial in death as in life, the Hemlock Society USA as a name died suddenly on June 13, 2003, in a boardroom in Denver, Colorado. It was 23 years old. Public relations experts and political strategists leaning heavily on focus groups were on hand to usher in the death knell. Months of agonizing debate had preceded the decision because no one could think of a better name!

Born in 1980 in my garage in Santa Monica, California, Hemlock went on to... Read more ...

When we look at what the right-to-die movement has achieved, against what it has wished to do, an honest person would agree that there is still a long, long way to go. The first signs of organized activity on this issue came in the late 1930s in Britain, but nothing really happened until the 1970s when the public -- the non-medical world -- woke up with a shock to the fact that we often die differently nowadays compared to our ancestors. Read more ...

Assisted suicide laws around the world are clear in some nations but unclear if they exist at all in others. Just because a country has not defined its criminal code on this specific action does not mean all assisters will go free. It is a complicated state of affairs. A great many people instinctively feel that suicide and assisted suicide are such individual acts of freedom and free will that they assume there are no legal prohibitions. This fallacy has brought many people into trouble with the law. Read more ...

Visit the Assisted-Dying Blog maintained by Derek Humphry Share your views with the rest of the world on ERGOs weblog.

Join ERGO - Become a Member Help ERGO in its work to achieve choices in dying.

Join the International Right-To-Die Mailing List Exchange news and views on a wide range of right-to-die topics. (Only subscribe if you in principle support the right to choose to die when physical suffering is unbearable).

Back to top

Visit link:

Assisted Suicide - Information on right-to-die and ...