Euthanasia – A Right of the Human Being or a Crime against Humanity? (original) (raw)
Related papers
EUTHANASIA AND HUMAN RIGHTS AT GLOBAL LEVEL
isara solutions, 2021
Ph.D. Scholar 1. Introduction Human rights are those rights which are conferred upon the human beings just because of the fact that they are "human beings". These rights are also known as inherent rights bestowed upon mankind by the nature. The concept of human rights, derived from considerations of the nature of mankind, originated within a political context called natural rights, they developed as a proclamation of liberty, to be used to guarantee freedom from attacks on one's life, dignity or property. They were considered to apply equally to each individual, or to equivalent groups, they were unconditional and they imposed on others a duty to respect them. 1 Human rights, in simple term, mean rights of humans. Human rights are also taken as the fundamental rights, basic rights or natural rights. Human rights are inalienable without which we cannot survive as human beings. In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human rights proclaimed that "the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" is the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. Further, everyone has the right to life and all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law, This Declaration was supplemented by more specific proclamations, including the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and political Rights, Article 6 of which states-"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life". 2 It means right to life has been given a prominent place in this unique international human rights instrument. 2. Right to life as a Human Right under International Instruments Since the declaration of 1948, the respect exists for the preservation and fulfillment of human life as worthwhile value at international level. That is the reason why suicide, euthanasia and abortion are generally considered not only immoral but also criminal wrongs. The right to one's life is declared to be the fundamental natural right, on which every other right depends for its existence and its validity. When an effort is made to support euthanasia by offering the cause of human rights, it becomes problematic when the focus is only on a single right i.e. right to life. The right to life has very wider aspects. It includes in it numerous other rights for example-Right to food, Right to health, Right to live with human dignity and so on. Very few people dispute the above said rights. But some people claim another right which is simply the opposite, for example, the right to die. What exactly does this mean? Death is inevitable for everyone, so it doesn't make sense for death to be a right that can be violated. What the "right to die" really
A matter of life or death: the euthanasia debate under a human rights perspective
2016
This contribution examines euthanasia from a human rights perspective. It focuses in particular on passive euthanasia and the right to refuse medical treatment, two aspects that remain undertheorised. Special attention is paid to the interplay of human dignity and human autonomy in the context of euthanasia. Zusammenfassung Dieser Beitrag untersucht menschenrechtliche Fragen im Zusammenhang mit der Debatte über Sterbehilfe. Im Vordergrund stehen passive Sterbehilfe sowie das Recht, medizinische Versorgung zu verweigern. Der Artikel analysiert ausserdem das Zusammenspiel von Autonomie und Menschenwürde im Kontext der Sterbehilfe. Résumé Cet article analyse plusieurs questions relatives à l'euthanasie sous l'angle des droits de l'homme. Une priorité est accordée à deux aspects moins souvent discutés, à savoir l'euthanasie passive et le droit de refuser un traitement médical. L'article examine par ailleurs la relation entre autonomie et dignité humaine dans le débat autour de l'euthanasie.
Contemplating the controversy Exploring the Ethics and Realities of Euthanasia
International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 2024
Euthanasia is one of the most debatable and emotive subjects and has remained controversial on ethical, medical and legal grounds in 20th century and it still is. During all this this time public opinion, decisions of courts, and legal and medical approaches to the issue of euthanasia has been conflicting. It has sharply divided scientific & unscientific public to its supporters and opponents. All major religions are strongly against legalizing killing. A majority of the intellectuals are of the opinion that the sanctity of life, as a primary principle, should be given due consideration before legalizing euthanasia or mercy killing. In the current study authors will probe into the approaches of various countries, in different regions of the world, towards Euthanasia. In some Western European countries, euthanasia is a legal medical procedure backed up by the law and it is conducted for the ease of the critically ill patients. On the other hand, we do have countries where euthanasia is considered a murder like any other murder. On the third place, there are many states where euthanasia is a murder committed under some specific circumstances. In this manuscript the authors have tried to discuss different approaches towards euthanasia; how it is dealt with in different countries; it’s advantages, disadvantages and a comparison between the countries where euthanasia is considered as a murder and between the countries where it is a completely legal medical procedure.
Ελληνικό Περιοδικό της Νοσηλευτικής Επιστήμης, 2012
Introduction: Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. Aim of this review is to present different views and arguments about euthanasia and to discuss the Legal regulations and the way that modern societies confront the inevitable dilemmas that it brings in surface. A literature review was conducted on google scholar for articles about the theme using as key words: euthanasia, active, passive, pros/cons, legislation. Results: The results of the literature review came up with its pros and cons of it. Some of the pros are that it provides a way to relieve extreme pain, a way of relief when a person's quality of life is low and an insurance of the rights of dignity and self-determination. The basic cons of it is that it devalues human life, it has become a means of health care cost containment and that there are objections about the expressions of willingness for people under High psychological pressure or for population groups like older people with dementia or mentally ill. Under the pressure of the new circumstances in the last decades, Euthanasia became the subject of legislative interventions in a number of countries. But even the most complete regulatory framework cannot predict all the aspects. Every different case will always be a confrontation with important existential and emotional issues. Conclusion: Before resulting in Euthanasia, a person must consider the situation. There are a lot of circumstances under which euthanasia is a reasonable and responsible choice. Each case is different from another
Euthanasia: Socio-Medical and Legal Perspective
2014
Globally, the controversy on euthanasia traverses public opinion, decisions of courts, socio-medical and even legal discourse. In view of this, this paper considers, not only the general conceptual and ethical issues involved in euthanasia, but it also examines the subject from socio-medical and legal perspectives. The paper concludes that killing under the guise of compassion is potentially dangerous, morally reprehensible and ethically flawed. This paper however concedes that different countries should adopt alternatives suitable to their values and ways of life.
2020
The main aim of this article is to outline the discussion on euthanasia that affects the basic aspects of human life – the foundation of human dignity, sense of pain and suffering, the conception of the afterlife, quality and value of life, etc. All the indications are that the process of the legalisation of euthanasia will develop in the coming decades. Today we need a new paradigm of bioethics, built on the basis of a new humanism, which will allow us to adequately analyse such phenomena as death, suffering and dying. The new paradigm of bioethics can be an effective tool in the dispute over the death on request.
Legalization of Euthanasia: A persisting dilemma
Journal of Law Policy and Globalization, 2012
The euthanasia is one of the most debated issues in the world. The main focus of the debate has been weather euthanasia should be legalized or not. Euthanasia generally means a mercy killing. Contrary views and arguments exist in this regard. The present paper is a moderate attempt to examine these contrary arguments. The paper concludes with the observations that debate on euthanasia is still grappled with dilemma. This debate is continuing one as some people are of the view that the life is sacred and no one has got the right to end it whereas others say that life belongs to oneself so each person has got the right to decide what he or she wants to do with it even if it amounts to dying.
The Debate Over Euthanasia and Human Rights
European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 2016
Euthanasia is a dilemma due to the presence of more than one course of conduct justified on various grounds. Medical science has devised solutions for battling excruciating pain and agony. The Supreme Court in March 2018 delivered landmark judgment allowing 'living will' where, an adult in his conscious mind, is permitted to refuse medical treatment or voluntarily decide not to take medical treatment to embrace death in a natural way. The judgment gave legal recognition to Passive euthanasia in India and robust interpretation of 'Right to life' including 'Right to die' thereby bringing it within manifold of article-21 of constitution of India. The present paper describes evolution of Euthanasia in India contemporary to Dutch law as well as pros and cones of the landmark judgment in Aruna Shanbaug case.
An Ethical Excursion of Euthanasia
isara solutions, 2020
Should an individual, in addition to the right to live, have a right to die? The debate of euthanasia has been a globally controversial and overheated issue for many decades. The word 'euthanasia' is derived from Greek 'euthanos' meaning 'a gentle and easy death'. However, it is now used to refer to the killing of patients who are incurably ill and in great pain and distress, in order to relieve them of their sufferings. Euthanasia can be of three types: voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide or mercy killing (euthanasia performed with patient's consent), non-voluntary euthanasia (when the patient is unable to give consent) and involuntary euthanasia (which is performed on a patient against his will). Euthanasia can be carried out either by administering a lethal dose of a suitable drug (active euthanasia) or letting the patient die by withholding treatment (passive euthanasia). While passive euthanasia is considered legal in many countries (India, Australia, Germany, England, etc) active euthanasia is only legal in Netherlands and Belgium. The person seeking euthanasia often argues that in a civilized society giving everybody the right to a 'dignified death' without pain is ethically acceptable as a universal principle. However, there are many social, political and moral dilemmas legalizing euthanasia. In this dissertation few of them is highlighted.
EUTHANASIA: Legal, Religious, and Medical Ethics Perspectives
Mohamed Khalifa, 2023
While technological and scientific advancement has led to rapid development in the medical sector and the pharmaceutical industry and thereby resulted in the treatment of major illnesses, some diseases still are untreatable and impinge on a good quality of life. This prejudice against pain and suffering has led some doctors and scientists to suggest euthanasia, also known as artificial death, to end the pain associated with some untreatable illnesses. It is a suggestion that is based on the ground that death is preferable to life. As more countries in the West have moved toward the discussion of implementing this recent practice, discussions regarding the ethics of the nature of the medical profession and its ethical and legal obligation towards treating patients and alleviating their pain and what that means came into question. Consequently, the law stepped in to intervene as the judge on whether to authorize or criminalize this emerging medical practice. This paper is set to: first, provide a brief historical overview of the context in which euthanasia as a medical practice came to emergence; second, clarify the meaning of the practice through an analysis of the medical perspective, with a particular focus on the ethical argument put forward by practitioners; third, engage in a discussion of religious views as well as legislative laws on euthanasia; fourth, analyze the contested claim that modernity gave birth to this phenomena. This paper encompasses two aspects: it engages legal texts concerning the development of the laws regarding euthanasia and then moves to a discussion of religious views and their influence on shaping the law of euthanasia, with a particular focus on Islamic sharia law and its objectives.