Where is Euthanasia Legal?
597328
In the Netherlands. In Switzerland you can have assisted suicide. You are given the drugs to take yourself.\n\nlook at BBC website for info re Diane Pretty and others. It's very informative
869811
I am currently a practicing Physician Assistant and in my first year of school this question was posed to my entire class.  We spent 45 minutes debating it as a class with out professor looking on (and keeping some calm.)  After we finished, he told us the "accpeted" medical position that he found in his practice as a PA-C.  First, as someone else stated, euthanasia is illegal in all states except Oregon (however, I will admit that I do not know the laws of other countries).  What we were told is that if doing certain proceudres or writing certain prescriptions violates our belief system, we are under no obligation to our patient's to perform or prescribe these things.  BUT what we do owe to our patients is to provide them with someone who will help them.  Our role as a health care provider is to help our patients, not to preach our beliefs unto them.  I went to a Catholic university where we were "not supposed" to be taught about abortion and birth control, but of course that is a part of medicine and we need to learn about it for the safety of our patients.  As a side note, if you are uncomfortable prescribing birth control medications and performing abortions, but are interested in OB/GYN then I would recommend working in a Catholic hospital/health system as they follow the Catholic beliefs and cannot prescribe or perform them (unless the mother is in danger).  However, they do speak to their patients about the option of birth control medications (and other practices) as they are health care providers providing patient education, which is an important part of being a health care provider.
319455
Right to Die is probably going to be a big zero with so many Catholics on the Court.\nRemember in the U.S. you do NOT have a right to something (positive right), rather you have protection from government interference because the government is restrained by the Constitution (negative right).  The government has been found to have an interest in preventing suicides, and as long as rich people need miserable poor people to cut their grass that's unlikely to change.
8761
i agree!!\n\nEuthanasia (Greek: ευθανασία - ευ "good", θανατος "death") refers to assisted dying. The assistance ends the life of a person or an animal, in a painless or minimally painful way. Euthanasia is most often performed in a merciful way, in order to end suffering. This article discusses euthanasia in humans; a separate article covers animal euthanasia.\n\nThis topic is often highly-charged—emotionally, politically, and morally. Terminology and laws shift over time and geographically and globally, causing a great deal of confusion.\n\nFirstly there is some debate as to whether euthanasia refers to "letting die" or "allowing to die." (See terms: informed consent, decisional capacity, surrogate decision making, Living wills, Do Not Resuscitate) In the United States and the Netherlands, "letting die" or "allowing to die" refer to areas which the state consider ethically and legally acceptable and permissible. This includes the withholding and withdrawing of medical treatment such as dialysis or feeding tubes or hydration and nutrition. The last two being things which are associated with "love and caring" in most cultures. While the concept of holding off on those two things may be counterintuitive, as a body's major organ systems try to shut down, a dying person often feels most comfortable without any fluids or food. To do otherwise is like "force feeding" a body that does not "want" or need to be fed or hydrated, and doing so may actually cause physical discomfort and suffering.\n\nIn the UK this is usually only accepted when a newly born baby is born with certain physical or mental disorders.\n\nIn most other countries removing or denying treatment would usually be seen as murder. Usually, because in a growing number of law cases over the last 20 years, the jury has sided with the defendant.\n\nNext are several summary statements defining what euthanasia can include,. These are followed by expanded definitions of each. Euthanasia (assisted dying) may employ methods that are either indirect or direct. Indirect methods of euthanasia are defined by a individual him or herself taking the final step inducing death. Direct methods are defined by the involvement of others (clinicians) who take the final step inducing death. Direct euthanasia can either be voluntary, nonvoluntary or involuntary. (See Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche for one of the first uses of the three types of euthanasia.)\n\nIndirect euthanasia involves the indirect involvement of a clinician (e.g. physician, clinical nurse practitioner, pharmacist) as an agent who participates only by providing the means for a patient to induce his/her own death. This could mean writing or filling a prescription for medications in a quantity large enough to cause death when taken by the patient. This kind of assistance is currently legal in the American state of Oregon. It became legal in 1998 as a result of the "Death with Dignity Act" which was passed in the state in 1994. In politically and emotionally loaded terms, this is frequently referred to as physician-assisted suicide.\n\nDirect euthanasia involves the direct involvement of a clinician as agent in inducing a patient’s death. (e.g. administering a lethal drug by injection.) Direct euthanasia is not currently legal anywhere in the US, but both direct and indirect euthanasia are legal in Belgium and the Netherlands.\n\nVoluntary euthanasia occurs with the fully-informed request of a decisionally-competent adult patient or that of their surrogate (proxy). (Example: Thomas Youk, with ALS was assisted by Jack Kevorkian.)\n\nA large part of the controversy surrounding euthanasia focuses upon the slippery slope argument. The fear is that indirect euthanasia and/or voluntary direct euthanasia will lead to acceptance of the nonvoluntary and involuntary types of euthanasia.\n\nNonvoluntary euthanasia
336112
Always a hot point of contention this one!\nI do believe in euthanasia and it certainly would be a revolutionary day if it should ever get legalized.\nHowever, what a complicated issue to draw up legal guidelines for. How do you decide when a situation is hopeless and agonising enough to warrant 'assisted suicide'. And more importantly who decides for someone who is not able to respond?\nI think underlying this issue is 'western' (or christian secular) society's attitudes to death. Now I'm no anthropologist, but I think when you explore this issue extensively down to the very soul of the debate, death is something that we (western society) are ultimately terrified of. I think you will find there are other cultures in which 'death' and 'dying' are treated vastly differently.\nI certainly agree that euthanasia should be incorporated into our way of thinking. It is not 'playing God' nor is it being 'evil'. It is a merciful act of love of the greatest kind.
52207
You do know what euthanasia is,.. right?  It is mercy killing.\n\nThere is no age limit, but in order for this to happen without much difficulty one has to have a living will.\n\nDr. Kavorkian went to prison because he was prccticing it.\n\nHope this helps\n\nGood luck
823172
Unrelenting pain and misery is no gift. \n\nPeople have the right to determine when life should end. After all, nobody denies that courage on the battlefield, or death while saving the lives of others, is worthy of merit in the eyes of man and of man's God. Death is a part of life and living. Nobody should be condemned to pain, dependency and misery. On the other hand, nobody but the person concerned has any right to decide. \n\nAnd that is why every state in the USA and many jurisdictions abroad have legal provisions for living wills and health care proxies. Everybody should have one -- even if it is to say that "my life shall be preserved at all costs, so long as there is somebody, some insurance company or some government, prepared and willing to pay for my hospitalization and my doctors' bills.\n\nWhat should happen in a country like the USA where health care and paying for it are private matters is beyond the scope of this Y! Answer. In Canada, and here in Europe at least, making a choice to live does not, in the absence of employer-paid private insurance, condemn one's family to poverty and bankruptcy
79958
If euthanasia is allowed my concern is a doctor going to try hard to perserve life?  No, basic human nature.  It violates the Hypocratic Oath that they take.\n\nIt inessence makes doctors gods determining life and death.  Doctors are to perserve life.
145430
"Murder" defines the ILLEGAL killing of another human being. Killing someone isn't "murder" until the killer is convicted of the crime of murder. So yes, killing a person is legal in most countries.\n\nOJ Simpson and Senator Ted Kennedy are classic examples of a "killer", but they're not  murderers. Doctors who perform abortion and euthanasia are "killers", but not murderers. Executioners are killers and so are drunk drivers in many cases. They usually aren't charged with nor convicted of murder.
463334
Very good question!!!!\nMy nephew was 28 wks at birth and he died, he was a whole little man. All his fingers and toes, etc. and it is legal to abort at this stage in LIFE.\nAnd if my pet is suffering I can have them put to sleep.\nBut I am forced to watch a loved one die because we can't even do for them as we would a pet!!!!!! Hmmmmmm\nOUR GOVERNMENT?????????
868068
i had been into that issue too, im on affirmative side. yes to euthanasia. my ground presents a lot of aspects, morality, socially, politically, by religion, specially psychological issues..etc, all social and prvate issues. it isnt a hindrance when the person commting or indulging it ask for a mercy killing. bt due to constitutional rights, a life to preserve and a right to live. doctors wont give it for ts a matter of dignity to human rights, infact they are legitimate to give life not to take it.\nbut for me, i preffer the psychological effects, what good does it make when the person insist to die, and refuses to live? he/ she may lost sanity when provoked to live.\nwhat good does it do when u see it alive but so dead and numb lost inside. it may hurt and burn us to pain, but i rather have euthanasia be accepted than to see a person i loved in suffering and in a state of life loosing for the reason to live.
85206
This is up for huge debate. Still much to be decided on this by the courts.\n\nAs for my thoughts on the matter. I believe any person should have the right to die if they are aware of their irreversable situation of health or whatever. I also believe that a "living will" that explains a person's wishes not to be left in a vegetative state should be upheld as well.
662279
Euthanasia is the overall term used to describe a medical process whereby a sickly patient ends his/her life rather than continue suffering until an inevitable death.  Physician assisted suicide is just one type of euthanasia.\n\n"Voluntary active euthanasia is the intentionally administering medication or other interventions to cause the patient's death at the patient's explicit request and with fully informed consent. Involuntary active euthanasia is the intentionally administering medications or other interventions to cause patient's death when patient was competent but without the patient's explicit request and/or fully informed consent. Nonvoluntary active euthanasia is the intentionally administering medication or other interventions to cause patient's death when patient was incompetent or not able to explicitly requesting it. Terminating life-sustaining treatments is withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatments from the patient to let him or her die. Palliative care or indirect euthanasia is administering narcotics or other medications to relieve pain with incidental consequence of causing sufficient respiratory depression to result in the patient's death. Physician-assisted suicide is a physician providing medication or other interventions to a patient with the understanding that the patient intends to use them to commit suicide."
171346
Your friend was likely being treated by Hospice or was in a hospital or skilled nursing unit or nursing home.  The medical establishment has become increasingly prodeath, advocating euthanasia.  They kill by overdosing on morphine, sedatives and by withholding food and even water, as well as other medical care.  You don't have to do this.  You can take no more pain medication than is needed for any pain.  You can drink and eat or be fed through a stomach tube or intravenously.  You can get epidural medication to relieve pain, without the sedation of taking pain shots, if needed, oftentimes.  You can say to hell with you amateurs, I'm going to a special cancer center, such as MD Anderson Hospital in Houston, Texas. (I would advise this early on.)  Or you can go to Mexico and seek alternative treatments.  Don't ever let a doctor get you down, giving you a death sentence.  Who the hell does he think he is?  God?  No man has the right to say your time is up.  That is God's prerogative only.
680216
Probably Oregon. Oregon is the only state in which people are not required to perform the fanatical ritual of chronic suffering when death is the only way to end that suffering.
902301
None, it is legal in all 50 states.  For more information on abortion, see http://Abort73.com
447758
The only people who can legally kill people are the state. That is how conservatives see it. A medical doctor cannot make a decision on life and death. \n\nI do consider myself a consevative however I believe it to be hypocrytical of christians who are against abortion and euthanasia but for the death penalty. Makes no sense at all.