The first apparent usage of the term "euthanasia" belongs to the historian Suetoniuswho described how the Emperor Augustus"dying quickly and without suffering in the arms of his wife, Livia, experienced the 'euthanasia' he had wished for.
Thus those who risk their life in order to save others or those who refuse to renounce their faith knowing that this will mean their death do not commit suicide when they die as a result of this action because they do not explicitly intend their own deaths.
For example, if a wife were to give her husband, who was terminally ill with cancer of the colon and in severe pain, a large quantity of poison at his request, this would be assisted suicide.
Physician Assisted Suicide Physician Assisted Suicide occurs when a physician helps a person take his or her own life by giving advice, writing a prescription for lethal medication, or assisting the individual with some device which allows the person to take his or her own life.
The physician lends expertise, the person does the act. Euthanasia is a term that has not been used consistently. Passive euthanasia is used to describe the action of withdrawing and withholding treatment with the results that death occurs as it would as a natural consequence of the disease process.
They believe it is more helpful to use the concept of intention. What did the physician intend when he or she performed the act? What did the physician intend when he or she omitted to act? This discussion was submitted to the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Medical Ethics during its deliberation on euthanasia: A deliberate intervention to end life is always morally wrong and should remain unlawful.
An omission may be an example of euthanasia and therefore morally wrong if its intention is solely to cause death. However, an omission would be a good example of good medical practice if its intention was, say, to maximise the quality of life remaining to the patient, or to respect the wishes of the patient and his family.
The difference lies in the intention. Is tube feeding a basic care or an artificial means of life support? Removal of tube feeding will result in the death of these patients, more from dehydration than starvation.
A secular consensus developed that artificially administered fluids and nutrition are different from eating and drinking, are modes of treatment, and are thus optional like any other treatment.
Many Christians have been reluctant to join this secular consensus. It all depends on his intention. If his intention is to spare the patient a burdensome treatment, or one that is useless to preserve life, the omission can be justified.
But if his intention is to bring on death, it is euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia is a compassionate act to end the life of a patient who is perceived to be suffering and could make a voluntary request, but has not done so.
NonVoluntary euthanasia occurs when another person, out of compassion, does an action with the intention of ending the life of a suffering patient where the patient is unable to make a voluntary request e. This criteria is universally accepted by all medical and legal societies.
Brain death requires the death of the whole brain, including the brainstem. PVS has only lost his or her cortex. The medical problem of PVS after brain damage was first described by Dr. Bryan Jennet and Dr.
Fred Plum in The person in PVS apparently has no contact at all with their external environment. They are in no sense of the term suffering. According to the definition given by Dr.
Yet they are not brain-death as evidenced by their functioning brainstem which controls respiratory and heart functions. To comment on the quality of this life and to suggest that the person would be better of dead, is to say that we can judge the advantages of non-existence to be greater than the disadvantages of existence.
It cannot therefore by answered by medical science alone.IF MERCY KILLING BECOMES LEGAL. Many people support the right of a terminally ill patient to die - but what if the right becomes an obligation???
And what of the potential for abuse by impatient heirs??? Jun 28, · Euthanasia is a physician or others ‘killing’ of a suffering patient in attempt to hasten death and alleviate pain. In the game of life and death: life is the most obvious answer one would think.
Basic Arguments Proponents of Euthanasia seek relief from pain, suffering & depression through death rather than through medical intervention and justify Euthansaia by claiming a right to die and for economic expediency.
Sep 12, · Euthanasia is an issue most politicians wouldn’t touch with a long pole. And with good reason: Any argument on the subject usually devolves into a series of complex, abstract questions about morality and freedom of choice and so on. But while these ideas do have their place in the debate, they.
What Euthanasia is and is not. The Christian World View. Part 2. Quality of Life. Autonomy. What Then Should We Do?
Conclusion. A Christian Response to Euthanasia. This definition does not include any of the elements of the traditional concept of euthanasia. In fact, it points towards a quite different concept.
This "new concept" arbitrarily limits euthanasia exclusively to: 1. a physician’s action, 2. an administration of drugs; 3. a response to a voluntary request.