Euthanasia: Law, Ethics, and Controversies

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