(Institute/University)
Executive Summary
The subjects of suicide among the terminally ill and the severely despondent is one of the most heated in the international community. Though various states have proffered the immoral nature of intentionally killing someone even though that person is suffering from an incurable and aggressively illness that medical science cannot cure as of yet, it must be noted that patients that are suffering in these situations do not automatically request for the operation of processes that will ultimately result in the quickening of their death. Research literature shows that though it is correct to hold that there are those that will pursue policies and procedures that will end their life; there are those that believe that medical options and technologies will be able to offer them a good quality of life given their condition. Lastly, it must be emphasized that the choice to take one’s life must be left with the patients themselves, as these are the actual implementers and beneficiaries of these laws.
Introduction4
Literature Review..4
Quickening Death: a global perspective5
Assisted suicide studies in other countries
Canada..7
Austria..8
Assisted suicide in selected states9
Oregon..9
Vermont9
Washington10
California..10
Conclusions11
References
Introduction
Virginia law considers mélange as a criminal act. In the respect, people who underwent excruciating pain and loss to a degree that these chose to self-destroy would also face the shame of being charged in court. Virginia jurisprudence retains a number of provisions in English common law which states that the “criminal killing of a human creatureis without justification or excuse.” This act can be done against another individual, or in the interpretation of the law, against oneself. Draschler (2013) avers that for mélange to be regarded as a crime, English jurisprudence mandated that the individuals must be of “years of discretion” and must be rational in their thinking. The sanction for the action was accrued to the suicide’s family; the estate of the suicide will be barred from his/her heirs and will be confiscated on the part of the government.
The act of euthanasia, or “mercy killing,” is prohibited under Virginia. At present, Oregon and Washington are the only jurisdictions that permit “physician assisted suicide” for patients beyond medical cure or for despondent persons wishing to end their lives. However in the context of Virginia law, the removal of “life support systems,” inclusive of feeding systems and respirators, is not seen as “mercy killing” but rather helping the person commit suicide (Find Law, 2016).
Literature Review
In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3 of the accord states that all humans have the “right to life, liberty, and security of his person.” Quffa and Voinea (2013, pp. 261-262) also find this position in the European Convention of Human Rights; however, the accord bring the “right to life” full circle with the event of ‘assisted suicide.’ Article 2 of the accord states that only the courts have the right to terminate the life of a person, and only in the execution of a death penalty sentence, or when death is the penalty given by the law. Hence, in this light, if there is a guarantee to life, is there then a guarantee to die? If there is, what are the effects of such a right?
However, there must be first a differentiation of the terms euthanasia and assisted suicide. The difference lies in the person that implements the culminating action; if the person is the one that executes the choice, that is euthanasia, and if the person is injected with a drug given by a doctor to terminate the life of the patient, then this is assisted suicide.
Quickening death: A global perspective
The identification of a life-ending illness, cancer, for instance, is usually followed by the use of state-of-the-art medical equipment and protocols in an attempt to remedy the illness or at the very least reduce the spread of the illness through the patient’s body. In cases where there are no curative protocols at present, such as ALS, or in cases where the regimen is not effective in curing or even slowing down the progression of the illness, such as recurring cancer, the illness will steadily worsen to terminal stage. In this case, mollification treatment regimens can be engaged to regulate the symptoms of the illness and to maintain the life quality of the patient. This will allow them to live their lives ‘to the fullest’ given their situation.
Pestinger, Stiel, Elsner, Widdershoven, Voltz, Nauck, and Radbruch (2015, pp. 712-713) avers that it must be understood that not all terminally ill or irrecoverably despondent individuals do not mechanically ask to be given life-ending medical options. Many patients with degenerative diseases opt to make use of the medical options available to them to live full lives. Nonetheless, there are those that do ask of options to hasten their deaths.
The views on assisted suicide are diverse in the international community. German law criminalizes euthanasia, as stated in Article 216 of the penal code. In the same provision, if anyone encourage or aid someone to consider suicide is not a criminal act. German law is more flexible if compared to Swiss law, where ‘assisted suicide’ is prohibited under Article 115 of the Swiss penal code. Under Swiss law, assisted mélange is a criminal act only if the motive is self-centered.
Medical practitioners that engage in ‘physician assisted suicide’ can be punished under civil law. The German Medical Association has indicated in the 2013 amendments of their guidelines on specialization equipping are banned from engaging in euthanasia or in ‘assisted suicide.’ Nonetheless, the various German medical guilds where the legal foundations rest have taken this clause in their respective guidelines and changed the terminologies, and in a number of jurisdictions, the language has been altered or even removed altogether (pp. 713-714).
The Netherlands has addressed the apprehensions of states on issues of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. The country has established appropriate legal and medical agendas in 2002, with the country adopting the “Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act”. In the operation of this law, Barbuzzi (2014) doctors who do an act of mercy killing or aid in the suicide of a patient cannot be prosecuted when these strictly adhere to certain policies. Within the mechanisms, patients seeking “mercy killing” or “assisted suicide” in the Netherlands are assessed by two doctors before the administration of the procedure; after the administration of the procedure is then assessed by regulatory and medical analysts afterwards. This oversight step is designed to ensure the independence of patients prior to the implementation of the procedure to the patient and examined for any ethical anomalies. The country’s legal system allows for the conduct of ‘passive’ and ‘active’ mercy killing regimes, with both managed by the operation of the Termination of Life law.
Given that the laws in the country on ‘mercy killing’ are applicable solely to the doctors and the patients, the limitations are not only levied on those that are allowed to execute the act, but also on the beneficiaries of the act. Should the patient be assessed to be suffering from an incurable illness and there is no prognosis that the condition will not improve or even be alleviated, and if the patient expresses their wish to quicken their death, then that desire must be obeyed (p. 18).
Assisted suicide studies in other countries: Canada
The landmark 2012 British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Carter v Canada removed from Canada’s legal jurisprudence language that criminalizes assisted suicide. Barbuzzi (2014, pp. 16-17) avers that the decision of the High Court with critics fearing that the decisions leaves “vulnerable populations” will be exposed to instances of being forced to exercise their right to assisted suicide. It must be understood that in the ambit of the Canadian legal scheme, suicide by itself is not a criminal act; withal, ‘assisted suicide’ and ‘euthanasia’ are criminal actions. The Carter decision is expected to challenge the prevailing legal comprehension of assisted mélange and euthanasia. The arguments on the resolution in Carter in Canada’s High Court will center on the actuation that the criminal status of assisted suicide infringes on Section 7 and Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The long held restriction on assisted suicide and active euthanasia is derived from a plethora of issues. The first apprehension is that individuals will not ask to engage ‘assisted suicide’ of their own volition; the second issue concerns the concept that a positive ruling on ‘assisted suicide’ and ‘active euthanasia’ will open the avenues for volitional and involuntary “mercy killing.”
These apprehensions are noted in the laws of a number of countries; the fears generally result in appeals as well as changes in the law regardless of whether the laws were subjected to extensive consultations. The plaintiffs held that section 241 (b) of the Canadian Criminal Code infringed on the Charter rights of the parties in Carter. In the majority holding, with people that are incapacitated to the point that these cannot opt to self-mélange, the right to commit suicide was effectively limited to those who were physically able to do so. This is due to the fact that Canada does not impose any criminal sanction against suicide itself, and in the light, capable persons are able to commit suicide without any fear of punishment; Canadian law only punishes acts of suicide where one person aids in the execution of the plan of the suicide to implement his/her plan (p. 17).
Austria
There is a small majority of Austrians who support the implementation of “mercy killing” for terminally ill or irrecoverably despondent patients, particularly in the case of older and dying patients who ask for the procedure. Approval for a general structuring of “mercy killing” ranges between 43 to 48 percent among the population, with men favoring more in support all types of mercy killing (Stolz, Burkert, Rasky, Grobschadl, Stronegger, 2015, p. 5). Support for euthanasia was at its lowest in cases of non-voluntary medically assisted death or extremely disabled or ill infants. This position was supported by one –fifth of the women and one-fourth of the men in the population. In addition, religion played a significant factor in the comprehension of euthanasia (p. 6).
Assisted suicide in select states
Oregon
Taylor (2004, p. 1) discusses the “Oregon Death with Dignity Act” wherein the law allows an adult Oregon resident who is suffering from a terminal Illnesses that will cause the death of the person within a period of six (6) months. In order to exercise the right, the person must of his/her own volition make their request to end their life, formally ask for the medications that will result in the person’s death, and be certified by the attending doctor/s as well as the consulting doctor/s to be suffering from the life-ending condition.
Vermont
A decade of emotional debates saw the Vermont legislature finally approve the “End of Life Choices” legislative proposal, making the state the fourth state to decriminalize ‘physician assisted suicide.’ Hogeland (2013) avers that the law permits state doctors to give lethal doses of medicines designed to end the life of irrecoverably ill patients. The law takes immediate effect. The state government expressed strong support for the law, noting that the law will not impose on anyone a choice not arrived at with sound reasoning; in the opinion of Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin (2013), the law only gives those who are facing an excruciating and agonizing end of life scenario with an option to end their lives in an extensively monitored manner. Opponents however are challenging the law based on the possibility that the decisions arrived at by the patients are based on a wrong diagnoses of their condition.
Washington
The “Evergreen State” in 2008 approved a ballot initiative making Washington only the second jurisdiction in the United States. The state’s “Death with Dignity” law permits doctors to assist patients to end their life without fearing criminal prosecution. To be able to qualify under the tenets of the law, the person must be certified as suffering from an incurable illness and have less than six (6) months to live, as proscribed by their doctor/s. The executor or the patient himself/herself may administer the lethal medication that will allow them to die peacefully bereft of any physical pain.
However, the Washington law differentiates between euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. In the former, the patient is the one given the mandate to take the medications given by the doctor/s. After the doctor prescribes the medication, the patient is left with the choice whether to take the medications and the time when these medications will be taken. The latter occurs when a ‘third party’ gives the medication or takes in a direct manner to terminate the life of the patient. The practice of ‘mercy killing’ is a criminal act in the United States (Find Law, 2016).
California
Though a euthanasia or “mercy killing” is considered a criminal act under Federal jurisprudence, increasing numbers of states in the United States-including California-allow the conduct of “physician assisted suicide.” Aside from the state’s existing Natural Death Act that permits the removal of a patient’s life support systems or the cessation of life saving or extending processes, California’s “End of Life Option Act” allows qualified terminally ill patients to ask for life-ending medications that these can administer on their own (Find Law, 2016).
Conclusion
Withal, Barbuzzi (2014) argues that the quality of life of the patient in the future given the condition of the patient must be taken into consideration. The argument on this issue can be stated to reflect the beliefs of the state regarding the idea of life. The modicum of argument in assessing the validity of patient’s wishes must be anchored on the premise that there is a conflict between the ‘sanctity of life’ ranged against the concept of the ‘quality of life.’ In the context of Canada, the state believes that all life is revered and that it is unethical, save criminal, to deprive individuals of their right to exercise their control over that life.
In this light, it can be stated that Canadian jurisprudence in the area does not hold the factor of “quality of life” as an operating element to recognize active euthanasia as well as physician assisted suicide, particularly in the legal arena in the same level as it is in the personal level. The identification of the quality of life is generally considered in opting to exercise their right to reject or cease medical treatment.
Though the right to reject medical treatment is designed to safeguard the independence of the patient, and not their right to die, patients faced with a legal obstacle to their right to die must be jettisoned as the right to die, or to extend and avail of medical options, is solely in the hands of the patients (Barbuzzi, 2014, p. 19). The termination of one’s life when faced with the circumstances of a severely depreciated quality of life must be left in the hands of the individual, as it will ultimately be left to them to decide what will be in their best interests (Quffa, Voinea, 2013, p. 266).
References
Barbuzzi, M (2014) Who owns the right to die? An argument about the legal status of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. Penn Biotehics Journal pp. 16-21
Draschler, D.A (2013) “Suicide and the law in Virginia” Retrieved 4 March 2016 from <https://acluva.org/13486/suicide-and-the-law-in-virginia/
Find Law (2016) “California euthanasia laws” Retrieved 4 March 2016 from <http://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-euthanasia-laws.html
Find Law (2016) “Virginia euthanasia laws” Retrieved 4 March 2016 from <http://statelaws.findlaw.com/virginia-law/virginia-euthanasia-laws.html
Find Law (2016) “Washington euthanasia laws” Retrieved 4 March 2016 from <http://statelaws.findlaw.com/washington-law/washington-euthanasia-laws.html
Hogeland, A (2013) “Vermont assisted suicide bill: Vermont gives euthanasia the green light” Retrieved 4 March 2016 from <http://mic.com/articles/43473/vermont-assisted-suicide-bill-vermont-gives-euthanasia-the-green-light#.atwwdtYIw
Pestinger, M., Stiel, S., Elnser, F., Widdershoven, G., Voltz, R., Nauck, F., and Radbruch, L (2015) The desire to hasten death: using grounded theory for a better understanding “when perception of time tends to be a slippery slope” Palliative Medicine Volume 29 issue 8 pp. 711-719
Quffa, A., Vionea, D (2013) Assisted suicide-between the right to life, the obligation to live and social acceptance. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice Volume 5 issue 2 pp. 261-266
Stolz, E., Burkert, N., Grobschadl, F., Rasky, E., Stronegger, W.J., Freidl (2016) Determinants of public attitudes towards euthanasia in adults and physician-assisted death in neonates on Austria: a national survey. Public Library of Science Volume 10 issue 4 <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25906265
Taylor, B (2004) “Physician assisted suicide” Retrieved 4 March 2016 from <https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/citizen_engagement/Reports/2004FG_Physician_Assisted_Suicide.pdf
