Euthanasia: Law, Ethics, and Controversies

This report delves into the complex and controversial topic of euthanasia from legal and ethical perspectives. It discusses the arguments for and against it, different types of euthanasia, and concerns about abuse and misuse. The report also explores the slippery slope argument, the impact of medical costs on ethical decisions, and the potential abuse of vulnerable individuals. The conclusion suggests that active euthanasia is a humane course of action that should be legalized with proper regulations in place.

Law and Ethics
Contents
Law and Ethics...........................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY.............................................................................................................................................1
CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................................6
INTRODUCTION
This is very complicated when it comes to assistant dying. There is very few answer and many
facets. The right to die is most common used to presented the principle when there is debate on
assistant dying. There is a concept of inviolability of life and further on other side the freedom of
choice. This is being suggested that we have the freedom to die just like as we have right to live.
We all are indebted to die, the demise is only thing which is irresistible and inevitable. This is
one of the most fundamental obligation in universe. The physician executes the final act when a
patient request for voluntary euthanasia. In this the patient will perform final act and cause own
death, this is distinguished from assisted suicide. The assistance will come in form of practical,
and this will also taken in the form of medical assistance. People travels from one country to

another for taking active euthanasia. The following report is going to discuss the various
arguments for and in against if the said contention.
MAIN BODY
Either by an act or an omission the death can be induced. An individual have the freedom
to deny treatment and common law recognise that on the root of compelling them to agonize
from such a dealing that will entitled as invasion of their physical veracity. The right of denial is
an personal discretionary right. When the patient is not able to express the wish to refuse
treatment then they will continue with formerly unwanted aggressive conduct is very best in the
favour of the individual who is in PVS and it is not able to form or articulate his will. The patient
himself can terminate his life, this can not be done by any other person. The euthanasia entitles
to terminate the life of a patient with the will of himself. The meaning of euthanasia which is
generally used is, an act which results to immediate killing by a doctor of a suffering patient who
is acquiesced as the action. It is thoughtful that a human is ending a patient’s life to safeguard
him from more grief, the principle of euthanasia stands on autonomy and mercy. The assistance
suicide with the help of physician is legal in the country’s like Belgium, Netherlands,
Switzerland, Luxembourg, Oregon and Montana in US, and the state of Washington. There are
mainly two type of euthanasia in active euthanasia, in this an individual is straight cause the
patient’s demise And in passive euthanasia the doctor do not take patient’s life but they just let
them die. Active euthanasia is when the demise is instigated by doing some act and passive
euthanasia is when the death is caused by an error. In this the doctor withdraw all the treatment
and the patient can die itself, traditionally the passive euthanasia is considered as less bad then
the active euthanasia. But some thinks that the euthanasia is ethically bad. The euthanasia is
given with the consent of a patient, and if the patient is not in the condition to give consent then
they will give passive euthanasia for his betterment.
The term Euthanasia which is also recognized by the name of mercy killing, is the act when a
terminally ill person's life is intentionally ended. Moreover, it is a situation when a
psychologically capable or the critically ill individual is permitted to ascertain when to end his or
her life by the way of medication prescribed by a doctor. The said measure is also known as

assisted suicide. The opposition to assisted dying, which also comprises of the aspects of
euthanasia and aided suicide, is frequently outlined in public debates as a assurance to the
sacredness of life contrasted with a belief in the liberty of choice. Various countries such as
Netherlands, Switzerland, and Belgium have made assisted dying legal along with the imposition
of varying restrictions. Moreover, Doctors can recommend fatal dosages of medication to
critically ill patients in five states in the United States which are Oregon, Washington, Vermont,
Montana, and New Mexico. The House of Lords lately discussed a projected supported dying
bill, but members were divided on whether to support it or not. Even as euthanasia and suicide
are ethically wrong in Singapore, an individual can expressly appeal that medical specialists
should not stretch his life through astonishing life-sustaining action if he has no expectation of
regaining through the Advance Medical Directive (AMD). Should the fatally ill be able to plot
and time their own deaths as Singapore's population ages and chronic disease turn into a growing
cause of disability and death in the country. As a result of which there arises the concern
as would such a move will empower people or will open them up to abuse.
Furthermore, the assisted death comprises of the two types of acts which are the
euthanasia and assisted suicide. Both the said terms are bifurcated as to who causes the death and
the other is who commits the acts. According to the Penal Code, neither is legal in Singapore.
Abetment of an attempted suicide is also an crime under section 309 when read with section
107. The query is whether this should be the instance, and the purpose of this is to investigate the
problems, worries, and opinions surrounding the current legal situation. The argument over
assisted dying is fundamentally with respect to the the two contrasting ideologies of sanctity of
life and freedom of choice. However, ascertaining which of these succeeds and determines
whether or not a specific act is legal is not simply a mathematical exercise. In fact, each of these
two principles has countervailing factors that further aggravate the situation. The self-interests of
a patient in a permanent vegetative state can take precedence over the sanctity of life. The
revolutionary case of Airesdale NHS Trust v Bland, in which the House of Lords ruled that non-
natural nourishing of Mr Bland, a Hillsborough disaster victim who was in a persistent
vegetative state after being hurt, could be withdrawn, allowing him to die. Importantly, their
Lordships' decisions acknowledged that the principle of life sanctity is not complete. Second, the
freedom of choice gives way to other factors as well. In a letter to The Guardian, Baroness
Campbell stated that assisted dying is not simply a matter of giving those of us who live near

death more options. It raises serious concerns about how society and ourselves perceive us. She
argued that the very people for whom the proposed legislation (Bill Assisted Dying for the
Terminally) was planned did not sustenance or even condemn it. Her viewpoint stems from a
fear that letting such freedom will lead to the assumption that disabled people's lives are
somehow less valuable, and that society will further marginalize the terminally ill and
incapacitated. Nevertheless, this does not address the issue of providing choice to those who
believe they require it. One of the major opinions for legalizing assisted dying is that death is
sometimes a better choice than prolonged suffering. Furthermore, it is the responsibility to
alleviate the suffering of the fellow man. We don't let animals agonize, so why should humans,
says Professor Stephen Hawking. The problem is that most doctors swear to uphold the
Hippocratic Oath, which states that they will not administer a lethal drug even if it is requested.
As a result, it has come full circle to the delicate harmonizing act that will be essential if assisted
dying becomes legal.
In Singapore, section 3(1) of the Advance Medical Directive Act 5 states that anyone over the
age of 21 who is not mentally ill may make an advance medical directive if he does not want to
receive unusual life-sustaining measures in the event of a terminal illness. This is for situations
like the one in Bland. In that sense, it is a very restricted statute because, while it recognizes
individual independence, it does not go outside the common law in terms of medical
practitioners' permissible actions. There are two options for moving forward. First, suicide
should be decriminalized, and second, prosecutorial discretion should be used carefully. Any
change in the former, however, would be subject to the same considerations as the latter. In the
latter case, clear and principled guidelines based on good legal or ethical reasons would be
required, as the Attorney-Chambers General's protects the public interest and should not be seen
as undermining parliamentary intent. As things stand, there are unlikely to be any key deviations
to this area of the law in Singapore in the near future, but as the population of Singapore ages, it
is expected that there will be more public debate about death preparation.
Moreover, Many researchers are concerned that if voluntary
euthanasia becomes legal, it will not be long before involuntary
euthanasia becomes common. The slippery slope argument is what

it's called In general. It states that if humans allow something
relatively harmless today, then they may set off a trend that leads
to the acceptance of something previously unthinkable. Those who
argue against this claim that properly drafted legislation can create
a solid barrier across the icy slope.
Different versions of the slippery slope argument are such as-
One will not be able to keep voluntary euthanasia under control if
the law is changed to allow it. Moreover, the euthanasia supporters
argue that deprived of appropriate directive and control devices in
place, the practice would never be legalized. Doctors may soon
begin killing people without their knowledge or consent. According
to supporters, there is a significant alteration among murder people
who ask for death in suitable conditions and killing people without
their consent. The other aspect can be the health care costs as
because of rising health-care costs, doctors will kill patients to save
money or free up beds. Some doctors support voluntary euthanasia
because they believe they should respect their patients' right to be
treated as independent human beings, as per the supporters. That
is, when doctors support euthanasia, it is because they want to
honor their patients' desires. As a result, doctors are not likely to kill
people without their consensus, as this goes against the whole point
of allowing voluntary euthanasia. However, cost-conscious doctors
are more likely to comply with their patients wishes to die.
Furthermore, According to a 1998 study, doctors who are cost-
conscious and "practice resource-conserving medicine" are more
likely to write lethal prescriptions for terminally ill patients. This

suggests that medical costs have an impact on doctors' ethical
decisions in this area.
The other contention can be the fact that permitting intended
euthanasia makes it easier for people to obligate murder because it
can be disguised as active voluntary euthanasia. According to
various supporters, the law can deal with the prospect of self-
defense or suicide being used as a cover for murder. As a result, it
will be able to handle this case just as well. Medical cooperation will
be required to disguise the murder as euthanasia. It will be an
unappealing option due to the need for a conspiracy. Euthanasia is
typically understood from the perspective of the person who wishes
to die, but it also marks others, and their civil liberties must be
measured such as the friends and family of the person who is asking
for euthanasia, medical and other caregivers, as well as others in
similar situations who may feel pressed by the patient society's
decision in general.
Moreover, many people also suspect that euthanasia will reduce the
accessibility of comforting care in the public for the reason that well-
being schemes will want to use the minimum expensive approaches
of dealing with dying patients. Medicinal decision-makers are
previously confronted with ethical dilemmas when determining
amongst challenging demands for restricted resources. Making
euthanasia extra reachable could exacerbate the slippery slope by
inspiring individuals who would not otherwise choose it to do so.
Another argument that contends that euthanasia should not be
allowed is because of the reason that it will be abused with respect

to the pressure placed on the vulnerable. The fear is that allowing
euthanasia will put vulnerable people under influence to end their
lives. Stopping people from using persuading or intimidation to get
people to demand euthanasia when they don't want it would be
difficult, if not impossible. People who are sick and dependent can
sense valueless and onerous to those who love and care for them.
They may be a problem, but those who love them may be
enthusiastic to shoulder it. However, if euthanasia is an option, the
sick person may put pressure on themselves to request it.
CONCLUSION
This report concludes that the active euthanasia is an most human course of action which
terminates ill patients. It is voluntary, the arguments are becoming more valid and strong to
legalise the active euthanasia. If a person is suffering from pain and suffering then only they will
ask for euthanasia. The main reason for not legalization of euthanasia is to prevent the misuse of
this. But the misuse happens anyway. This will very beneficial if the government should take
action and properly frame it and put out in place. This will make entire system more effective.
REFERENCE
Koon, O.E., Andrea, Y., Si, L., Jie, A., Ho, L.K., Lin, F.X. and Krishna, L.K.R., 2018. Responding to calls
to legalise euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in Singapore. Asia Pacific J. Health L. & Ethics, 12,
p.53.
Standish, K., 2020. Medical Suicide. In Suicide through a Peacebuilding Lens (pp. 109-131). Palgrave
Macmillan, Singapore.

Virvidakis, S., 2021. Rationalistic Value Realism as a Religion Without God: An Option for Metaethical
Quietism. In Quietism, Agnosticism and Mysticism (pp. 53-72). Springer, Singapore.
Ashby, M.A., 2022. Sperling, Daniel. 2019. Suicide tourism. Oxford and New York: Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-882545-6.
Dawson, A., Jordens, C.F., Macneill, P. and Zion, D., 2018. Bioethics and the Myth of Neutrality. Journal
of Bioethical Inquiry, 15(4), pp.483-486.
Nakazawa, E., Yamamoto, K., Ozeki-Hayashi, R., & Akabayashi, A. (2019). Why can’t Japanese people
decide?—withdrawal of ventilatory support in end-of-life scenarios and their indecisiveness.
Nakazawa, E., Yamamoto, K., Ozeki-Hayashi, R. and Akabayashi, A., 2019. Why can’t Japanese people
decide?—withdrawal of ventilatory support in end-of-life scenarios and their indecisiveness.
Wong, M.E., 2021. The struggle for merit in meritocratic Singapore: Implications for persons with
disabilities. In Special Needs In Singapore: Trends And Issues (pp. 57-79).
Dubljević, V., 2020. The principle of autonomy and behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. Journal
of Bioethical Inquiry, 17(2), pp.271-282.