Title
Name
Institution
Legal Studies
Euthanasia is defined as the ending of the life of an ill individual in order to alleviate the person from any pain. People who undergo this procedure normally have a terminal disease. Mostly, it is carried out by the person’s request but there are cases where the person is too ill and cannot take the decision, so in that situation, it is the family and close ones who decide on the patient's behalf. The word is taken from the Greek word euthanatos meaning single death. This is quite a controversial and debatable topic because some people are in favor of euthanasia while there are others who are completely against this procedure due to its controversial nature. In some US states, the UK and Netherlands this practice is legal. In the countries where this practice is illegal, the voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide can lead to 14 years or more imprisonment (Rietjen et al., 2009). The issue is at the center of heated debates for many years which are surrounded by religious, ethical and other practical considerations. The purpose of this essay is to suggest a legal reform on the current laws of euthanasia because although people can use it for their benefits, there are also those patients who need it to end their sufferings, who have the incurable disease so for such patients this practice can be life-changing. Therefore, the government must need to revise its law on euthanasia and introduce policies that can benefit all.
There are three main types of euthanasia. One is called voluntary, and the other one is called involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is when the procedure is conducted by the consent of the patient. It is currently legal in countries like Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands and Washington in the United States of America ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"6A0k37Fc","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(BANOVI\\uc0\\u262{} & TURANJANIN, 2014)","plainCitation":"(BANOVIĆ & TURANJANIN, 2014)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":754,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/4C6u8dIT/items/5BXSDP7D"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/4C6u8dIT/items/5BXSDP7D"],"itemData":{"id":754,"type":"article-journal","title":"Euthanasia: Murder or Not: A Comparative Approach","container-title":"Iranian Journal of Public Health","page":"1316-1323","volume":"43","issue":"10","source":"PubMed Central","abstract":"Background Euthanasia is one of the most intriguing ethical, medical and law issues that marked whole XX century and beginning of the XXI century, sharply dividing scientific and unscientific public to its supporters and opponents. It also appears as one of the points where all three major religions (Catholic, Orthodox, and Islamic) have the same view. They are strongly against legalizing mercy killing, emphasizing the holiness of life as a primary criterion by which the countries should start in their considerations. Studying criminal justice systems in the world, the authors concluded that the issue of deprivation of life from compassion is solved on three ways. On the first place, we have countries where euthanasia is murder like any other murder from the criminal codes. Second, the most numerous are states where euthanasia is murder committed under privilege circumstances. On the third place, in the Western Europe we have countries where euthanasia is a legal medical procedure, under requirements prescribed by the law. In this paper, authors have made a brief comparison of the solutions that exist in some Islamic countries, where euthanasia is a murder, with Western countries, where it represents completely decriminalized medical procedure.","ISSN":"2251-6085","note":"PMID: 26056652\nPMCID: PMC4441884","shortTitle":"Euthanasia","journalAbbreviation":"Iran J Public Health","author":[{"family":"BANOVIĆ","given":"Božidar"},{"family":"TURANJANIN","given":"Veljko"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2014",10]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (BANOVIĆ & TURANJANIN, 2014). While non-voluntary euthanasia is conducted on behalf of the person who is unable to give their consent due to their health conditions. In such a case, the decision is taken by close friends and family of the person. The controversy related to euthanasia is because of non-voluntary euthanasia because in this case as the patient is not in the position to take the decision, therefore, it becomes the responsibility of the closed ones to decide on behalf of the patient. So chances are there that such people can use it for their benefit instead of favoring the patient. It can also be possible that the patient doesn’t want to take the decision but even then due to the physical state of the patient he/she is unable to tell his/her decision. Therefore, by taking into account all these points it is banned in most of the countries and strict rules are there to make sure that it is not practiced in these countries
In Australia, particularly many moves have been made in the state, territory and Commonwealth parliaments to introduces bills to legalize the practice of euthanasia. After almost 100 hours of debate across both Parliament houses and many of the demanding all night sitting, the Lower House MPs have approved the Andrew's Government revised the bill. For majestic agreement, the law will now go to the Governor. Denial Andrew's who is also a supporter of euthanasia after the death of his father referred to it as a historic verdict. After passing this bill, Victoria became the first state in Australia to legalize the practice of euthanasia, and from mid-2019, it will become official and legal practice. Previously if the doctors and hospitals were involved in illegal euthanasia, then they were liable to pay the heavy fine along with ten years’ jail, so it was a serious offense to practice euthanasia. (Benrubi, 1992). There are no exceptions even for medical practitioners. Although it is somehow acceptable that palliative care that speeds up the person's death is permissible where it is undertaken to ease the pain and suffering of the patient. People also do this by refusing or rejecting any medical intervention or assistance. The struggle and decades of activism have sought to alter the laws regarding this. The Rights of Terminally Act (1995) was a controversial law in which euthanasia was legal in the Northern Territory which was passed in 1995 by the parliament of the northern territory of Australia. The law came into force on 1 July 1996, and the first patient had cancer who wanted to use it, but they were unable to get the signatures from the specialists because they were scared that maybe they will face legal charges. The law was challenged in the law, so the specialists were waiting for a decision against that challenge. So it is evident that since 1995 every state in Australia except Queensland has tried to legalize the procedure. South Australia was closest to pass the law and even last November the state Premier and Opposition leader supported the recent attempt, and it resulted in 23 all tie in the parliament lower house, but later the bill was defeated on the speaker's casting a vote (Quirk, 1997).
Another behind the scene actor in this entire scenario who are often neglected are the stockholders. These stakeholders play a large role in the issue as they have the power to influence in legalizing of rejecting the idea of euthanasia. Once the power of these stockholders become clear including the physicians, patients and their families and insurance companies’ one can easily understand the role and support of the stakeholders in legalizing euthanasia. The main and central stack holders in case of the euthanasia are the patient and their families, and they can play a significant role in legalizing euthanasia because they are the one who can either get benefit from it or they can bear the consequences of it. Many patients suffer from end-stage diseases and to end the sufferings they have to travel overseas to practice euthanasia. David Goodwill who was 104 years old Australian went to Switzerland recently in order to die with dignity. For such people making euthanasia, a legal activity is quite significant because people who are old and those who suffer from end-stage diseases it is not easy for them to travel for long hours and also for their families it is expensive to bear the travel expenses. By making euthanasia legal, such issues can be resolved for those who genuinely need euthanasia to be legal. It should be kept in mind while legalizing euthanasia that the rules should be taken care of strictly by the law because it may be possible that certain hospitals and companies use these rules without the consent of the patients and their families.
As far as the doctors and physicians are concerned legalizing euthanasia can be helpful for them because once the patients are declared to have end-stage diseases, then there is no more logic on allowing them to stay in the hospitals for any longer. If the patients are willing and the law allows them, then they can end the sufferings of the patients by ending their life peacefully. The main purpose of the doctor profession is to reduce the pain of the patients so if euthanasia will be legal then the doctors can do it legally without being worried about the law (Strinic, 2016).
Euthanasia is not a new subject; it is in the debate since decades, some people want to legalize it, but there are others who show serious concerns if it is legalized around the world. Currently, very few countries are practicing it, but it is also noteworthy that the countries who used to have strict rules against euthanasia are now considering to legalize it and Australia is one such country where the debate is still going on about the proper legalization of this practice. It is the responsibility of the state to protect the rights and lives of its people so while allowing euthanasia the state must make sure that it is used for the welfare of the patients, not the stack holders because if that happens then, the sanctity of life will be disturbed. Therefore, unless proper rules are not introduced in most of the countries, the practice is illegal, and the end stage Patients have to move to the countries where it is legal.
References
Bartels, L., & Otlowski, M. (2010). A right to die? Euthanasia and the law in Australia.
Benrubi, G. I. (1992). Euthanasia—the need for procedural safeguards.
Bhatia, N., White, B., & Deliens, L. (2016). How should Australia respond to media-publicized developments on euthanasia in Belgium?.
Quirk, P. (1997). Euthanasia in the Commonwealth of Australia. Issues L. & Med., 13, 425. Hermsen, M. A., & ten Have, H. A. (2002). Euthanasia in palliative care journals. Journal of pain and symptom management, 23(6), 517-525.
Rietjens, J. A., van der Maas, P. J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., van Delden, J. J., & van der Heide, A. (2009). Two decades of research on euthanasia from the Netherlands. What have we learnt and what questions remain?. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 6(3), 271-283.
Somerville, M. A. (2003). " Death talk": debating euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in Australia. The Medical Journal of Australia, 178(4), 171-174.
Strinic, V. (2016). Arguments in Support and Against Euthanasia. British Journal of Medicine & Medical Research, 9(7), 1-12.
ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY BANOVIĆ, B., & TURANJANIN, V. (2014). Euthanasia: Murder or Not: A Comparative Approach. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 43(10), 1316–1323.
Castro, M. P. R. de, Antunes, G. C., Marcon, L. M. P., Andrade, L. S., Rückl, S., Andrade, V. L. Â., … Andrade, V. L. Â. (2016). Euthanasia and assisted suicide in western countries: a systematic review. Revista Bioética, 24(2), 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-80422016242136
