It is now evident that such a neutral pathway has been discovered, although perhaps by chance it has already been used several times and the results of this use have been published. I am referring to the reports of the major commissions of inquiry supported by the government, which have been held over the past few years on four different continents and which have dealt with the consequences of the legalization of euthanasia. The issue made headlines after a petition called for the legalization of euthanasia, and melted headlong into controversy with the full knowledge of nurses. [92] VE is sometimes described as an expression of a claim to privacy, as if it were only an important matter between the patient and the physician. If a doctor accepted euthanasia, it could only happen because he had concluded that this life had lost enough value – no one would destroy a life he cherished. But if a doctor felt comfortable with the idea that it was acceptable for him to attach little value to the lives of some patients, it could be fateful for other of his patients who were in a similar condition but had not asked for death. He would have the right to interpret positively any discussion of euthanasia and ignore the evidence that many of these discussions are initiated by patients in desperate need to have their lives confirmed and not rejected. It is well known that today`s medical systems are increasingly depersonalizing patients. The third principle is the principle of the common good. To demonstrate that euthanasia must be sanctioned as a public practice, we must be able to demonstrate that we cannot justify it solely on a case-by-case basis.

It is the principle that when we set policy, we sanction actions as standard practice. As we apply this principle to euthanasia, we must ask ourselves, “How does the purpose of my own private murder help make society the context in which human life can flourish?” Active euthanasia or assisted suicide are not legal in Spain. However, passive euthanasia is legal. A bill on active euthanasia is currently before the Senate. Voluntary active euthanasia, called “medical assistance in dying,” is legal in Canada for anyone over the age of 18 with an incurable disease that has progressed to the point where natural death is “reasonably foreseeable.” To prevent suicidal tourism, only people who are eligible for Canadian health insurance are allowed to use it. The legalization of the practice took place in 2015-2016 following a series of Supreme Court decisions that struck down the ban on physician-assisted suicide in Canada. Here is a timeline of events: If the circumstances are clinically justified, physicians should be able to discontinue life-sustaining treatment if they intend to hasten death and relieve suffering. Morally, the distinction is irrelevant in this particular context. If the passive interruption of life of severely incapacitated patients is legally and professionally acceptable, involuntary active euthanasia should have the same status. The circumvention of protections and laws, with little or no enforcement, provides evidence of the social slippage phenomenon described in Keown 5:28. So far, no case of euthanasia has been submitted to the judicial authorities for further investigation in Belgium. In the Netherlands, 16 cases (0.21% of all reported cases) were referred to judicial authorities in the first 4 years after the entry into force of the euthanasia law; Few have been investigated and none prosecuted.5 In one case, a counselor who counseled a non-terminally ill person on how to commit suicide was acquitted.29 There is therefore a growing tolerance for violations of the law, indicating a shift in social values following the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

In 2001, the AKP published a position paper against the legalisation of physician-assisted suicide (8). This topic has also been covered every few years in the American College of Physicians` ethics textbook, including the current issue (9). In light of recent changes in the legal landscape, public interest in the issue, and ongoing barriers to palliative care, an updated position paper is provided here. Within a framework that considers clinical practice, ethics, law and policy, this document provides background information, discusses the role of palliative and palliative care, examines the nature of the patient-physician relationship, and the distinction between refusal of life-sustaining treatment and physician-assisted suicide. and provides recommendations for responding to patient inquiries about physician-assisted suicide. Until 2001, the Netherlands only allowed adults access to euthanasia, or PAS. However, the 2001 law allowed children between the ages of 12 and 16 to be euthanized if their parents agreed, although this age group is generally unable to make such decisions.5 The law even allows doctors to perform euthanasia in case of disagreement between the parents. In 2005, the Groningen Protocol, which allows euthanasia of newborns and young children who should have “no hope of a good quality of life,” was implemented.34,35 In 2006, the Belgian legislator announced its intention to amend the law on euthanasia to include infants, adolescents and people with dementia or Alzheimer`s disease 36. Reporting is mandatory in all jurisdictions, but this requirement is often ignored 11,12. In Belgium, almost half of all cases of euthanasia are not reported to the Federal Monitoring and Evaluation Committee 13.

Legal requirements were not met more frequently in unreported cases than in reported cases: a written request for euthanasia was missed more frequently (88% versus 18%), palliative care physicians were consulted less frequently (55% versus 98%), and the medication was administered more frequently by a nurse (41% versus 0%). Most of the unreported cases (92%) involved euthanasia but were not perceived as “euthanasia” by the physician. In the Netherlands, at least 20% of euthanasia cases are unreported 7. This figure is probably conservative because it only represents cases that can be traced; The actual number can be up to 40% 14. Although registration rates have increased since legalization in 2001, 20% represents several hundred people per year. Mutual consent. Voluntary euthanasia means that one person asks and another agrees to kill life. Although consent in criminal law is not a defence to a violation of either of its provisions, both parties would have violated this principle in lawful euthanasia.