Despite recommendations from the Royal Dutch Medical Association that physician-assisted suicide should be preferred over euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide had a much lower frequency than euthanasia in each study; in this occurred in 0. Possible explanations for the frequent choice of euthanasia over physician-assisted suicide are that physicians want to control the act of ending life and to have medical assistance available in case of unforeseen difficulties, which are more likely to occur when patients take the drugs orally themselves Groenewoud et al.
Euthanasia is also often preferred when patients are physically too weak to take the drugs themselves. Frequency of euthanasia and other end-of-life practices in the Netherlands, in , , and Forgoing of potentially life prolonging treatments either withholding or withdrawing and intensified alleviation of symptoms occurred much more often than active ending of life. In the study, it could be established that the major reason for not reporting was that the physician did not regard the course of action as euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide and therefore did not see the necessity to legally report the case Onwuteaka-Philipsen et al.
This was strongly related to the kind of drugs used. The rates in and were comparable to those of The highest rates of the use of euthanasia were found in cancer patients: This explains partly the higher frequency of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide among younger patients.
Furthermore, compared to clinical specialists and nursing home physicians, general practitioners performed euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide in a higher proportion of deaths.
This can be explained by the fact that euthanasia is usually performed in the context of a longstanding patient-physician relationship, which is typical for the type of contact that general practitioners have with their patients. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in different patient groups in and This indicates that euthanasia is usually performed in an open atmosphere.
The rates from and were comparable. Thus, there seems to be a tendency to use the recommended drugs when performing euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, which is probably due to increased knowledge of physicians of how to perform euthanasia. Discussion and use of drugs for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in and The death certificate study of was simultaneously and with the same questionnaire performed in five other European countries: These countries have a rather comparable epidemiology of diseases and quality of health care.
They differ, however, in the legal regulations regarding euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Both practices are prohibited in Sweden, Denmark and Italy. In Switzerland, physician-assisted suicide is allowed if it is done without any self-interest, for physicians and other citizens, while euthanasia is forbidden. Interestingly, until recently in Switzerland, physicians could not provide physician-assisted suicide because being paid for their services could be seen as self-interest.
Euthanasia was also prohibited in Belgium at the time of the study, but a new law that allowed euthanasia under comparable circumstances as in the Netherlands had already been discussed in the Parliament Adams and Nys This was the first time that end-of-life decisions were studied in these countries, except for Belgium where in a similar study had been performed Deliens et al. The response percentages were satisfactory: In all countries, physicians reported to have used drugs with the explicit intention to hasten the death of a patient euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, or ending of life without an explicit patient request.
Ending of life without a patient request occurred more often than euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in all countries apart from the Netherlands. Frequency of euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions in the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Sweden, and Switzerland in The proportion of non-treatment decisions also differed substantially between countries: Alleviation of pain and symptoms while taking into account or appreciating hastening of death as a possible side-effect happened more frequently and in comparable rates in all countries: These rates show that end-of-life decision-making with a possible or certain life-shortening effect is practiced everywhere in the studied West-European countries.
End-of-life decisions that are mainly a medical response to the suffering of patients, such as alleviation of pain and symptoms, are performed in rather similar frequencies. However, the frequency of end-of-life decisions that are to a large extent determined by cultural factors—such as euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide and non-treatment decisions—varies much more between the countries.
Another striking finding of this study was that in countries where patients and relatives are more often involved in the decision-making at the end of life, the frequency of end-of-life decisions was higher, for example in the Netherlands. Many terminally ill patients who are facing death are offered interventions that may prolong their lives but at the same time may diminish their quality of life, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation or nasal-gastric feeding tubes.
Discussion between patient, relatives and professional caregivers about whether or not to use such interventions may result in the recognition that quality of life is sometimes to be preferred over prolonging life at all costs. While initially we thought that the high response rates of the Dutch studies could probably be explained by the Dutch tradition of openness about the subject, our European study showed that quite large proportions of physicians in other countries were also willing to share their experiences.
Second, our research shows that end-of-life decision-making is a significant aspect of end-of-life care. In approximately 4 out of every 10 patients, death is preceded by a decision that possibly or certainly hastened their dying process. Rather, it is also aimed at improving the quality of life of patients through the prevention and relief of their symptoms, sometimes to the extent that far-reaching decisions such as euthanasia are requested by the patient.
Third, public control and transparency of the practice of euthanasia is to a large extent possible, at least in the Netherlands. The review and notification procedure has increasingly been accepted by physicians, which shows their trust in the system. A last important lesson that can be learnt is that the legalization of euthanasia in the Netherlands did not result in a slippery slope for medical end-of-life practices.
Besides religious or principal-based arguments, the slippery slope argument is the mainstay of opponents of the legalization of euthanasia. Briefly, the argument states that: B is morally not acceptable; therefore, we must not allow A Griffiths et al.
Our studies show no evidence of a slippery slope. The frequency of ending of life without explicit patient request did not increase over the studied years.
Also, there is no evidence for a higher frequency of euthanasia among the elderly, people with low educational status, the poor, the physically disabled or chronically ill, minors, people with psychiatric illnesses including depression, or racial or ethnic minorities, compared with background populations Battin et al. Some of the criteria for due care for euthanasia are formulated as open general concepts, because they have to be interpreted taking into account the specific circumstances of every new case.
The best example of such an open concept is the condition that the patient should suffer unbearably. In the Chabot-case , the Court decided that suffering that has a non-somatic origin such as a severe and refractory depression can also be a justification for euthanasia; in the Brongersma-case this was further specified in the sense that suffering should originate from a medically classifiable disease, either somatic or psychiatric Griffiths et al. Euthanasia is most often performed in cases of severe suffering due to physical disease and symptoms and severe function loss, for patients with a limited life expectancy Onwuteaka-Philipsen et al.
In such cases there is usually little discussion about whether or not the suffering was unbearable. A previous study showed that a quarter of physicians who receive euthanasia requests find it problematic to assess the criteria of due care Buiting et al.
Problems are mostly related to the assessment of whether the patient suffered unbearably. To assess unbearability, physicians have to know how their patients experience the suffering, and there is no specific instrument to do so.
What can be objectively determined is the underlying disease and the accompanying symptoms and loss of function. Hence, what is still bearable for one person may be unbearable for another. Some claim this makes the unbearability of suffering something a physician can hardly assess and which should mainly be left to the judgment of the patient Beijk ; Buiting et al.
Yet, the review committees argue that suffering should be at least partly open to objectification Regional Euthanasia Review Committees Consequently, it is likely that physicians may have different opinions about which suffering can count as a legitimate ground for euthanasia. On the one hand, different opinions about when suffering becomes unbearable could be interpreted as problematic.
From the perspective of a patient, it may partly be a matter of chance whether a request for euthanasia will be granted. However, it is likely that this problem mainly exists in boundary cases, which are a minority of the euthanasia cases in the Netherlands Onwuteaka-Philipsen et al. From this point of view, difficulties with interpreting whether suffering is unbearable and potential differences between physicians and patients are to be expected and are consistent with the legal system of euthanasia in the Netherlands.
Thus, although assessing when suffering becomes unbearable is highly personal and ultimately depends on the experience of the person who is suffering, fostering societal and professional discussion and case law can further stimulate the exploration of the legal and moral boundaries of unbearable suffering in the context of the euthanasia law. Medical indications for continuous deep sedation are present when one or more untreatable or refractory symptoms are causing the patient unbearable suffering Verkerk et al.
A second precondition for the use of continuous deep sedation is the expectation that death will ensue in the reasonably near future—that is, within one to two weeks Verkerk et al. Studies in the Netherlands show that the estimated life shortening effect of continuous deep sedation is limited in most cases Rietjens et al.
As already described, the use of continuous deep sedation in the Netherlands was for the first time studied in and has increased from 5.
An important reason for the increased use of continuous deep sedation in the Netherlands is probably the increased attention to its use: Another possible reason for the increased use of continuous deep sedation is that it may have increasingly been used as a relevant alternative to euthanasia Rietjens et al. In the period —, the use of euthanasia decreased from 2.
The increase of continuous deep sedation took place mostly in the subgroups in which euthanasia is most common: This suggests that continuous deep sedation may in some instances be a relevant alternative to euthanasia. This raises the question whether continuous deep sedation may take away the need for euthanasia. The answer points to the similarities and differences between euthanasia and continuous deep sedation. The starting point of both practices is similar: Yet, there are marked differences Rietjens et al.
Continuous deep sedation is most often used in the last week of life to relieve unbearable physical suffering. Euthanasia is in the majority of patients applied somewhat earlier in the disease process to relieve unbearable suffering that is often rooted in a perceived loss of dignity and independency, and pointless suffering. Some consider control over the moment and time of dying of utmost importance, whereas others prefer to die in a deep sleep Rietjens et al.
As such, euthanasia and continuous deep sedation are both relevant options to relieve unbearable suffering at the end of life. More research and debate is needed to monitor both practices, and to investigate how they can contribute to an optimal quality of dying. Currently, discussions about the legalization of euthanasia or assisted dying are also occurring in other countries, such as the UK Dyer , France Peretti-Watel et al. There is no straightforward answer to this question.
As described earlier, the Netherlands has several unique features that have contributed to the legalization of euthanasia, probably the most important one being several decades of debate about euthanasia rooted in society. The Dutch health care system has several attributes that shaped a context of safeguards in which the legalization of euthanasia could take place, such as the fact that virtually everyone is covered by health insurance.
Further, healthcare, including home care in case of chronic or terminal disease, is freely accessible and affordable to all. This gives no ground for the sometimes heard fear that euthanasia can be mis used in case of high costs of medical care. Also, the general structure of the Dutch health care system is quite unique, with the Dutch general practitioner as a core of primary care. Euthanasia is in the large majority of cases performed by general practitioners, who often know the patient for a long time, which might enable the physician to judge whether the patient fulfills the first three, patient-related, criteria of due care.
These factors suggest that exporting the Dutch legalization process to other countries is not straightforward. On the other hand, studies suggest that everywhere in the world, patients request for their life to be ended, also in countries where euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide are not legalized Meier et al. Furthermore, our European study showed that euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide or life ending without an explicit patient request are part of medical practice in every studied country van der Heide et al.
If a society wants to control and improve life-ending practices, insight into the frequency and the characteristics of such practices is a first requirement. Our studies show that conducting research on end-of-life decision-making can greatly improve such insight. This is very important to make it right, so look for some thesis examples on the web.
Your next step is making an outline. Keep in mind that all the points should correlate to your research paper topic. Introduction — present your thesis here and explain, in brief, what the main goal of your euthanasia research paper is and why your potential readers should be interested in it.
In your body you have to give all the arguments you have to support your thesis. As it is not an essay, the number of arguments should be much bigger than in your essay on unemployment. Finish your body with the strongest argument you have prepared. Conclusion — the same as usual: Your final task is to organize your notes, make corrections where it is needed and so on.
After you do it, type the final draft and your euthanasia research paper is done! Well, as you can see, it is absolutely possible to write an essay or research paper yourself. But we understand that sometimes you simply have no time for it, as you have to do other tasks too. We are an academic writing company that has already helped a lot of students to succeed in studying.
Our professional writers can do any written assignment of any difficulty and in any discipline. Let us help you write your essay or research paper! We guarantee the highest quality of your order for really affordable prices!
Submit your application to EssayShark. The intention to deliberately accelerate the death of an incurable patient, even to stop his suffering, has never been unambiguous. The English philosopher Francis Bacon introduced the term euthanasia to denote light painless death, that is, calm and light death, without torment and suffering.
The doctor is obligated to ease the suffering of the dying by all available and legal methods. More and more people think that euthanasia is much more humane in some cases than life Piccirilli Dorsey, Inc. Nevertheless, it is necessary to find out whether people have the right to decide if someone needs to die or to live further.
This question is of interest to both ordinary people and doctors. What is more, it is unlikely that humanity will come to a single denominator in this matter. That is why there are arguments for and against euthanasia. To start with, the specific reasons for the legalization of euthanasia are as follows. Euthanasia makes it possible to fully exercise the human right to dispose of their lives, including making decisions on the termination of their own lives.
Thirdly, euthanasia provides the implementation of one of the fundamental principles of law, the principle of humanism. Euthanasia is humane because it stops the suffering and torment of an incurably sick person. The state and society must recognize this right not for everyone, but for the sake of the small group of people who need it Strinic, Visnja.
Analyzing their decisions about euthanasia, it can be seen that, in most cases, the court did not take into account the material aspect of the cases, but resolved them on the basis of violations of the procedural form.
However, it should be recalled that, in fact, in all civilized countries, a murder of compassion persists in practice regardless of whether it is permitted by law or not. Consequently, in countries where euthanasia is prohibited, where there is no legal protection against the misuse of euthanasia, the situation is worse. The legalization of euthanasia must go through some scientific, legislative filters that will establish rules, specific criteria and cases when such a right can be realized. Only controlled procedures and clear rules for the use of euthanasia will end the arbitrary system existing in many European countries Assistance To Patients At End Of Life.
First of all, it is believed that suicide with assistance or euthanasia is death with dignity because it occurs quickly. It turns out that those who do not die quickly die without dignity. Secondly, suicide with the help destroys the appointment of medical institutions: Synthesis For Euthanasia Euthanasia occurs in all societies, including those in which it is held to be immoral and illegal.
Euthanasia occurs under the guise of secrecy in societies that secrecy is mandatory. The first priority for the care of patients facing severe pain as a result of a terminal illness or chronic condition should be the relief of their pain. Relieving the patient's psychosocial and other suffering is as important as relieving the patient's pain. Western laws against passive and voluntary euthanasia have slowly been eased, although serious moral and legal questions still exist.
Some opponents of euthanasia have feared that the increasing success that doctors have had in transplanting human organs might lead to abuse of the practice of euthanasia. It is now generally understood, however, that physicians will not violate the rights of the dying donor in order to help preserve the life of the organ recipient. Even though polls indicate most Americans support the right of sick people to end their pain through self-inflicted death, euthanasia is one of the more contentious aspects of the death-with-dignity movement.
Slightly more than half of the physicians surveyed in Washington State would approve the legalization of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia under certain circumstances.
A total of physicians completed questionnaires about their attitudes toward euthanasia and assisted suicide. Physician- assisted suicide was described as prescribing medication and providing counseling to patients on overdosing to end their own lives.
Euthanasia was defined as administering an overdose of medication at an ill patient's request. Forty-two percent of physicians indicated that they found euthanasia ethically acceptable under some circumstances. Fifty-four percent indicated that they believed euthanasia should be legal under certain circumstances.
Today, patients are entitled to opt for passive euthanasia; that is, to make free and informed choices to refuse life support. The controversy over active euthanasia, however, is likely to remain intense because of opposition from religious groups and many members of the medical profession. The medical profession has generally been caught in the middle of the social controversies that rage over euthanasia. Government and religious groups as well as the medical profession itself agree that doctors are not required to use "extraordinary means" to prolong the life of the terminally ill.
The Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliment developed and approved the following substantive and procedural guidelines, or "points" for Dutch physicians to consider when practicing or administering Euthanasia: Substantive Guidelines a Euthanasia must be voluntary; the patient's request must be seriously considered and enduring. Procedural Guidelines e Euthanasia may be performed only by a physician though a nurse may assist the physician.
Having choices, including having the legal right for help to die is what's important in preserving the basic democratic fabric of the United States of America. The issue of euthanasia is, by it's very nature, a very difficult and private choice.
Euthanasia should remain exactly that; a choice; a choice that ought not be legislated or restricted by opposing forces or opinions. Helping terminally ill, or "quick fix" for intolerant society?
Copyright c Microsoft Corporation. Kevorkian obscures critical issues - and dangers. Shapiro il v U. Euthanasia Essay, term paper, research paper: Euthanasia See all college papers and term papers on Euthanasia. Need a different custom essay on Euthanasia? Buy a custom essay on Euthanasia. Need a custom research paper on Euthanasia?
Click here to buy a custom term paper. Other sample model essays: Evil From Morals By textbook definition, evil is "What is morally wrong, what hinders the realization of good" Webster. If that is evil, then what is good?
Jul 28, · Two decades of research on euthanasia in the Netherlands have resulted into clear insights in the frequency and characteristics of euthanasia and other medical end-of-life decisions in the Netherlands. These empirical studies have contributed to the quality of the public debate, and to the.
Involuntary euthanasia occurs without the consent of the individual, either because the patient is incompetent, because the patient’s wishes are not known, or because it is a policy to end the life of a person with certain traits (e.g., Nazi euthanasia policies).
Research on Euthanasia / Assisted Suicide A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that 32% of all euthanasia deaths in the Flanders region of . Euthanasia is a unique practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal disease/illness or an incurable condition by means of the.
Such unnatural extension of a person’s anguish has lead to an increasing number of euthanasia supports, who view the practice of euthanasia as ways and means to a peaceful, dignified, humane and self determined death. Euthanasia Research Paper: Writing Tips. Writing your euthanasia research paper would be more difficult for you than a simple essay. Nevertheless, if you know the structure and know what to do in each part of your research, nothing is impossible!