Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Indian doctors, however, disputed the report saying pre-birth gender checks had waned since a Supreme Court crackdown in 2001.

Some terminally ill patients who have been denied assistance in dying, have attempted to terminate they're suffering by ending their lives themselves or with the help of loved ones, who are not trained in medicine. Some patients have botched their suicides and brought further suffering to themselves and those around them. Patients should not have to resort to suicide to end their suffering. It is their life, their pain. They should be able to get the treatment they want.

" if we so choose, the end of life need not be preceded by intolerable pain, or by senility and loss of bodily functions.” Death with dignity is the right of every person who faces an incurable, painful or degrading future.

Caring for terminally ill patients requires a vast amount of money. In 1997, shortly after the senate voted to overturn the Northern Territory's euthanasia law, doctors from both sides of the euthanasia lobby united in calling for more funds for palliative care. There is a requirement for several hundred million dollars extra to really adequately provide for the needs of the dying, particularly in country areas.

Why does the government choose to outlaw euthanasia when it is done anyway? Legalizing it would mean that patients would be able to consult doctors, and not resort to taking it into their own hands, making it safer and better. There would be no need for suicide attempts; consequently there would be less tragedies

Passive euthanasia is defined as allowing a patient to die by withholding treatment, while active euthanasia is defined as taking measures that directly cause a patient's death

Those who argue against active euthanasia understand that there is a demand for active euthanasia as a response "to the fear of entrapment in a technologically sophisticated, seemingly uncaring world of medicine

offers several arguments in favor of the moral permissibility of active euthanasia, one of which is an argument from mercy. He begins by describing a classic case where a person named Jack is terminally ill and in unbearable pain and states that Jack's condition alone is a compelling reason for the permissibility of active mercy killing.

active euthanasia is morally permissible since it produces the greatest happiness

. The categorical imperative supports active euthanasia since no one would willfully universalize a rule, which condemns people to unbearable pain before death. It is also reasoned that it is considered bad to be the cause of someone's death and that death is regarded as a great evil. However, if it has been decided that active or passive euthanasia is desirable in a given case, it has also been decided that in this instance death is no greater an evil than the patient's continued existence

A good point is raised here, because death is supposedly inevitable in either case, so according to Rachel, if a doctor allows a patient to die or gives him a lethal injection, then the motives and ends are essentially the same.

In conclusion, denying patients the right to die with dignity and lucidity is unfair and cruel. If physician assisted suicide means giving a patient the right to choose between a life without dignity and hope, or ending their pain and suffering with an honorable closure on life, than it should be permitted.

When a patient has no desire to go on living and wants to die before their condition gets worse, they should be allowed to decide how their life ends and why. Assisted suicide is known to have been going on without fanfare and without legal support for many years. It is time to give physician-assisted suicide the legal justification that it deserves.

What if the patient is in coma and is unable to make a decision, should the relatives be allowed to make it?

Legalising voluntary Euthanasia would lead to involuntary euthanasia. In this society, full of greed and corruption anything is possible.

The Bible says, “Thou shalt not kill” And even Islam does not allow anyone to take away life.

We have cases, where doctors are often beaten up if the patient was not treated properly, what would happen to a doctor if he merely suggested Euthanasia to the relatives? Will the relatives be able to understand the suffering of the patient?

Some people feel we don’t choose when to be born and we should not be given the right to choose when to die.

The Oregon and Washington laws explicitly prohibit euthanasia, which is defined as involving someone other than the patient administering the medication

Many believe that "only God can give life and only God should take it away" (Cundiff, 64). There is also the question to consider of the fallibility of physicians. Many lives could be ended too hastily as a result of incorrect prognosis or diagnosis.

While the pain should be treated (for example, with painkillers), the person should not be forced to live through methods like life-support,

No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him, and such consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of any person by whom death may be inflicted on the person by whom consent is given.

"the government [does] not have the right to [allow] one group of people . . . to kill another group of people"

The government also does not intend to make anyone suffer

for a child following the birth of a male child, the gender ratio was roughly equal.

Ultrasound machines must be officially registered but many are now so light and portable, they are hard to monitor.

doctors

must not tell couples the sex of a foetus, in practice, some just use coded signals instead, our correspondent says.

A substantial proportion of physicians in the United States report that they receive requests for physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, and about 7 percent of those who responded to our survey have complied with such requests at least once.