80
Nirma University of Science and Technology Institute of Law I Semester B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)Course A brief socio-legal research in the subject of sociology as a Term Assignment II for the academic year 2007-08 On the topic of “Euthanasia or Mercy Killing" 1

Research Paper on Euthanasia

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Original research paper on Euthanasia

Citation preview

o

Nirma University of Science and TechnologyInstitute of LawI Semester B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)Course

A brief socio-legal research in the subject of sociology as a Term Assignment II for the academic year 2007-08 On the topic ofEuthanasia or Mercy Killing"

(Duration of the Project: 5th September, 2007 to 5th October, 2007) CHAPTER I 1.1 Introduction of the topic

Euthanasia Euthanasia (from Ancient Greek: , "good death" [I]) is the practice of ending the life of a terminally ill person in a painless or minimally painful way, for the purpose of limiting suffering. Laws around the world vary greatly with regard to euthanasia and are constantly subject to change as cultural values shift and better palliative care or treatments become available. It is legal in some nations, while in others it may be criminalized. Euthanasia is the deliberate bringing about a gentle and easy death, making the last days of the patient as comfortable as possible. This is to ensure a calm and peaceful death, within the context of relieving incurable suffering in terminal illness or disability. Euthanasia is voluntary, when requested by the sufferer; involuntary or compulsory if it is against the will of the patient; and passive when death is hastened by deliberate withdrawal of effective therapy or nourishment. 1.2 Nature & Scope of the study Terminology

Euthanasia can be conducted in various ways. In order to distinguish certain methods, more specific terminology may be used when discussing euthanasia.

Euthanasia may be conducted passively, non-aggressively, and aggressively. Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments (such as antibiotics, drugs, or surgery) or the distribution of a medication (such as morphine) to relieve pain, knowing that it may also result in death ( principle of double effect). Passive euthanasia is the most accepted form, and it is a common practice in most hospitals. Non-aggressive euthanasia entails the withdrawing of

life support and is more controversial. Aggressive euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or force to kill and is the most controversial means.

Euthanasia by consent Euthanasia may be conducted with or without consent. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted against someone's will and equates to murder. This practice is almost always considered wrong and is rarely debated. Involuntary euthanasia can be administered when the person is incapable of making a decision and it is thus left to a proxy. One recent example of non-voluntary euthanasia is the Terri Schiavo case. This is highly controversial, especially because multiple proxies may claim the authority to decide for the patient. Voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia with the person's direct consent, but is still controversial for reasons discussed below.

Other designations Some important designations of euthanasia consists of mercy killing, animal euthanasia, and physician-assisted suicide which is a term for aggressive voluntary euthanasia. The Canadian Council of Animal Care (CCAC) states that euthanasia is "to kill an animal painlessly, and without distress." The CCAC further explains a physical euthanasia technique called Cervical dislocation and a secondary technique call Exsanguination. CHPTER II 1.2 Historical background/ Origin & Development

1939 Nazi Germany

"In October of 1939 amid the turmoil of the outbreak of war Hitler ordered widespread "mercy killing" of the sick and disabled. Code named "Aktion T 4," the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate "life unworthy of life" at first focused on newborns and very young children. Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three who showed symptoms of mental retardation, physical deformity, or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich Health Ministry."

"The Nazi euthanasia program quickly expanded to include older disabled children and adults. Hitler's decree of October, 1939, typed on his personal stationery and back dated to Sept. 1, enlarged 'the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death.'" History

The term euthanasia comes from the Greek words "eu" and "thanatos" which combined means "good death". Hippocrates mentions euthanasia in the Hippocratic Oath, which was written between 400 and 300 B.C. The original Oath states: "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death." Despite this, the ancient Greeks and Romans generally did not believe that life needed to be preserved at any cost and were, in consequence, tolerant of suicide in cases where no relief could be offered to the dying or, in the case of the Stoics and Epicureans, where a person no longer cared for his life. The English Common Law from the 1300's until today also disapproved of both suicide and assisting suicide. However, in the 1500s, Thomas More, in describing a utopian community, envisaged such a community as one that would facilitate the death of those whose lives had become burdensome as a result of "torturing and lingering pain". Post-War history

Due to outrage over Nazi euthanasia, in the 1940s and 1950s there was very little public support for euthanasia, especially for any involuntary, eugenics-based proposals. Catholic Church leaders, among others, began speaking against euthanasia as a violation of the sanctity of life. (Nevertheless, owing to its principle of double effect, Catholic moral theology did leave room for shortening life with pain-killers and what would be characterized as passive euthanasia. On the other hand, judges were often lenient in mercy-killing cases. During this period, prominent proponents of euthanasia included Glanville Williams (The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law) and clergyman Joseph Fletcher ("Morals and medicine"). By the 1960s, advocacy for a right-to-die approach to voluntary euthanasia increased.

A key turning point in the debate over voluntary euthanasia (and physician assisted dying), at least in the United States, was the public furor over the case of Karen Ann Quinlan. The Quinlan case paved the way for legal protection of voluntary passive euthanasia. In 1977, California legalized living wills and other states soon followed suit.

In 1990, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan physician, became infamous for encouraging and assisting people in committing suicide which resulted in a Michigan law against the practice in 1992. Kevorkian was tried and convicted in 1999 for a murder displayed on television. In 1990, the Supreme Court approved the use of non-aggressive euthanasia. In 1994, Oregon voters approved doctor-assisted suicide and the Supreme Court allowed such laws in 1997. The Bush administration failed in its attempt to use drug law to stop Oregon in 2001. In 1999, non-aggressive euthanasia was permitted in Texas.

In 1993, the Netherlands decriminalized doctor-assisted suicide, and in 2002, restrictions were loosened. During that year, physician-assisted suicide was approved in Belgium. Australia's Northern Territory approved a euthanasia bill in 1995, but that was overturned by Australia's Federal Parliament in 1997.

Most recently, amid government roadblocks and controversy, Terri Schiavo, a Floridian who was believed to have been in a vegetative state since 1990, had her feeding tube removed in 2005. Her husband had won the right to take her off life support, which he claimed she would want but was difficult to confirm as she had no living will and the rest of her family claimed otherwise.

Modern history

Since the 19th Century, euthanasia has sparked intermittent debates and activism in North America and Europe. According to medical historian Ezekiel Emanuel, it was the availability of anesthesia that ushered in the modern era of euthanasia. In 1828, the first known anti-euthanasia law in the United States was passed in the state of New York, with many other localities and states following suit over a period of several years. After the civil war, voluntary euthanasia was promoted by advocates, including some doctors. Support peaked around the turn of the century in the U.S. and then grew again in the 1930's.

Euthanasia societies were formed in England in 1935 and in the U.S.A. in 1938 to promote aggressive euthanasia. Although euthanasia legislation did not pass in the U.S. or England, in 1937, doctor-assisted euthanasia was declared legal in Switzerland as long as the person ending the life has nothing to gain. During this period, euthanasia proposals were sometimes mixed with eugenics. While some proponents focused on voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill, others expressed interest in involuntary euthanasia for certain eugenic motivations (e.g., mentally "defective"). During this same era, meanwhile, U.S. court trials tackled cases involving critically ill people who requested physician assistance in dying as well as "mercy killings", such as by parents of their severely disabled children.

Prior to World War II, the Nazis carried out a controversial and now-condemned euthanasia program. In 1939, Nazis, in what was code named Action T4, involuntarily euthanized children under three who exhibited mental retardation, physical deformity, or other debilitating problems whom they considered "life unworthy of life". This program was later extended to include older children and adults. CHAPTER III 1.3 Legislative Provisions

The colour portion of the map shows the place where the euthanasia is legal.

Legal dilemmasEuthanasia (eu = good, Thanatos = death) drew attention of Indian doctors and sociologists in April 2002, when the Dutch Parliament legalised it (actually in practice there for two decades) making the Netherlands the only country in the world to do so. Earlier, Oregon became the only State in the U.S. to pass the "Death with Dignity Act" in 1997 enabling patients to administer lethal injections themselves. Here the patient (instead of doctor) practises euthanasia with legal sanction.

Euthanasia is of three types: active (sticking a lethal injection), passive (withdrawing of life support systems) and death by double effect (through heavy doses of pain killers hastening the end). Any one of the above is in vogue in many countries.

The Hindu editorially observes (April 21, 2002): "Surveys in European countries indicate that many thousands of people are routinely assisted to die by doctors in one of the two latter ways every year."

In certain cases, there is the seal of approval too. For instance, recently a U.K. family court granted the right to die to a 43-year old woman, paralysed from the neck downwards, who wanted to have her ventilator switched off.

This is yet another case of granting legal sanction to passive euthanasia, a judicial exemption to the law of land. Similarly, in Columbia doctors are not held responsible if they followed terminally ill patient's request for mercy killing. Among the proponents of euthanasia, Dr. Jack Kevorkian (known as Dr. Death) who claimed that he had helped more than 130 people die since 1990 is unique. In an extreme case, he not only administered the lethal injection to Thomas Youk suffering from a wasting disease, but also made a "60 minute TV programme" of the process. Terming this as audacious, Judge Jessica Cooper awarded `Dr. Death' 10-25 year prison sentence for murder in April 1999 under the law of State of Michigan. Although Dr. Kevorkian styles himself as a crusader comparable to Dr. Martin Luther King, he had little support from his compeers. The American Medical Association blamed him for perverting physician-patient relationship, which weakened public trust in medical profe! Ssion.People is naturally apprehensive that the ongoing happenings elsewhere will have a ripple effect in India too.

Two cases of Indian courts turning down requests of the patients to die were reported in the year 2001. The Patna High Court dismissed Tarakeshwar Chandravanshi's plea seeking mercy killing for his 25-year-old wife Kanchan, who had been comatose for 16 months. Again the Kerala High Court said no to the plea of BK Pillai, who had a disabling illness, to die. In spite of clear legal mandates, passive euthanasia, although sporadic, is prevalent in India. Here is an illustrative report from India Today (April 15, 2002):

"One case was of 59 year-old Neena Bonarji, an international bridge player who was suffering from progressive lung disease for three years and was being treated at Delhi's Ganga Ram hospital, had instructed her daughter Nisha Bhambani to put her off the ventilator when the time came. `When my mother slipped to 100 per cent supplementary support, we did what she had wished for,' says Bhambani. Within an hour, Bonarji passed away."

Although mercy killing appears morally justifiable (especially in brain dead patients whose organs can be donated to save other lives) in case of incurable diseases, doctors should be doubly careful, since they run the risk of attracting punishment for murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Dr. P.K. Dave, former director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, emphasised: "even if the relatives insist, we never opt for it."

The legal position

Euthanasia is illegal in most countries, although doctors do sometimes carry out euthanasia even where it is illegal.

Euthanasia is illegal in Britain. To kill another person deliberately is murder, even if the other person asks you to kill them.

It is also a criminal offence in Britain, punishable by 14 years' imprisonment, to assist aid or counsel somebody in relation to taking their own life.

(Legal position stated at March 2002) Supreme court cases

Supreme Court Backs Oregon Assisted Suicide Law

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

The Supreme Court on Tuesday let stand Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law, opening the door to many more such laws across the nation for ending the lives of the terminally ill. In a 6-3 vote, justices ruled that a federal drug law could not be used to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribed overdoses intended to facilitate the deaths of terminally ill patients. The Bush administration in 2001 sought to go after Oregon doctors who invoked the law, saying that induced suicide was not a "legitimate medical purpose."

But during oral arguments last November, several justices seemed skeptical of the government's position. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor pointed out that doctors participate in the administration of lethal injections to death row inmates.

Supreme Court Holds Hearing on Assisted Suicide Dispute

by Steven ErteltLifeNews.com EditorOctober 5, 2005

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday held hearings on a dispute between the state of Oregon, the only one to legalize assisted suicide, and the Bush administration on whether federally controlled drugs can be used in assisted suicides there.

The president believes Congressional legislation allows him to prohibit the use of the drugs, which are the only ones used in the suicides.

The case is Gonzales vs. Oregon and the Pacific state says the Bush administration has no right to intrude on the right to privacy of elderly and disabled patients there. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales counters that the federal government can limit the use of drugs under the 1971 Controlled Substances Act that have no "legitimate medical purpose."

Solicitor General Paul Clement told justices that the "most natural reading" of the law would disallow the drugs use in assisted suicides.

The justices asked vigorous questions that suggest they have not made up their minds about the case.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring and may not be around to vote on the case, asked Clement whether federal drugs laws prohibited the execution of criminals convicted under death penalty laws.

Pro-life groups say the Bush administration is right. Administration has properly determined that federally controlled medical drugs should be used to heal and help, not to kill," said Burke Balch, J.D., director of the NRLC Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics. "Most Americans do not want their federal government to be forced to facilitate euthanasia."

Newly-confirmed Chief Justice John Roberts took his first foray into the debate over pro-life issues. He said that, when Congress approved the disputed law, that it would never have imagined that a state legislature would legalize allowing physicians to aide patients in killing themselves or that federally controlled drugs would be used to end patients' lives.

Roberts and other justices said that Oregon's logic that a state should determine the use of federally controlled drugs would negate key federal anti-drug laws if a state determined some narcotics were allowable.

Several justices repeatedly disagreed with Oregon's contention that applying federal law to all fifty states would mean varying standards in each state.

Should the court side with the Bush administration, Oregon's law allowing assisted suicide wouldn't be taken off the books, but it would be crippled because doctors would not be able to use any drugs to help patients kill themselves.

In a 1997 case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that no right to assisted suicide exists, but states could decide whether to allow assisted suicides to take place.

Legislative Proposals

"In what states should proposals to legalize assisted suicide be expected?" is a fairly common question. The answer is simple. "Every state is likely to be faced with such a measure, sooner rather than later."

Since passage of the Oregons assisted-suicide law in November 1994, at least 54 assisted suicide and/or euthanasia measures have been introduced in 21 states. Not one has passed. On the other hand, between 1995 and 1999, seven states passed laws prohibiting assisted suicide. However, passage is not always the goal of proposing a law to permit assisted suicide. Those who favor the practice acknowledge that the mere introduction of a legislative proposal is beneficial since, when a "death with dignity" bill is introduced, media coverage follows. This presents an opportunity to feature an emotional appeal from a patient who pleads for the "right" to assisted suicide. Then, after the initial flurry of stories, most bills linger in committee until their demise at the end of a legislative session and coverage fades. But, the envelope has been moved. A step has been taken to build public support by creating the illusion that legalization of assisted suicide is a compassionate solution to a heart-wrenching situation.

Nonetheless, the constant barrage of proposals along with their accompanying attention-grabbing stories creates the illusion that assisted suicide is inevitable, that its not going to go away, and that the rest of the country will eventually follow Oregons lead.

It is true that attempts to legalize assisted suicide will continue. But it is not true that the rest of the country will inevitably fold under the pressure. Other states will not repeat Oregons tragic mistake if those who seek to protect society from the dangers of assisted suicide develop coalitions to oppose such measures.

A 1999 California bill that seemed destined for passage provides an example of the strategies used to promote such a bill and the effectiveness of broad-based opposition.

Strong Grassroots Opposition Defeats California Bill

In 1999, the makeup of the California legislature was such that assisted suicide advocates believed that they had a good chance to get a measure passed. On February 29, 1999, Assemblywoman Dion Aroner introduced AB 1592, the "California Death with Dignity Act."

The proposal was virtually identical to the Oregon law. In fact, Aroner pointed to this as a benefit saying, "AB 1592 is based on the same law that was passed by voters in the state of Oregon a couple of years ago. The good news is that were luckier than Oregon because we have their experience to consider." However, when the bill was introduced, opponents immediately began the task of contacting community leaders about its implications. Much to the surprise of assisted-suicide proponents, the points raised in opposition were not based on right-to-life or religious arguments. It didnt take long before Aroner and her bill encountered stormy waters in the form of strong grassroots opposition.

By the time hearings and committee votes on AB 1592 took place, people from across the state those who were poor, individuals from diverse ethnic groups, disabled persons and the elderly were present to stage protests outside the capitol and in front of Aroners Berkeley office.

Petitions opposing the measure, circulated within the African-American community, were signed by thousands of people. The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), which is the oldest and largest Latino civil rights organization in the United States, adopted a resolution condemning the legalization of doctor-assisted suicide. LULACs resolution stated that "many Latinos do not have health care" and "the poor have a right to live and to receive proper medical care." It concluded, "We urge a NO vote on AB 1592 because we believe it is unconscionable to talk about legalizing physician-assisted suicide when low-income people do not have access to comprehensive medical care including pain management and hospice care." Aroner had failed to consider the day-to-day obstacles faced by minorities and the poor when they need health care. As disability rights leader Diane Coleman has observed, assisted suicide is primarily promoted by those who are white, well-off, worried and well.

For many people, inequity in health care is a harsh reality, as illustrated by documented disparities in treatment and pain control:

African-American patients with a broken arm or leg are less likely to be given pain medication in emergency rooms than white patients who have similar injuries and complaints of pain. African-American cancer patients in nursing homes are severely undertreated for pain - some don't even get aspirin. Outpatients with cancer who went to clinics that served minority patients were three times more likely to be under-medicated for pain than were patients in other settings. Among minority groups, 35% of Hispanics lack health insurance, followed by 22% of African-Americans, and 21% of Asians. Those who lack insurance are three times more likely than those who are insured to be in poor health, have a higher mortality rate, and significantly reduced access to preventative medical care.

African-Americans are 50% less likely to get heart by-pass surgery and 25% less likely to get pain medication than their counterparts in other races. And ten different studies in the U.S. have shown that the disparities cannot be explained away by the fact that, as a group, African-American patients tend to be poorer, sicker and have less health insurance than white patients.

African-American academics who study bioethical issues have expressed concern that permitting assisted suicide, along with new limits on health care, presents new opportunities to victimize minorities: "People know they don't get the health care they need while they're living. So what makes them think anyone's going to be more sensitive when they're dying." Even activists in Aroners Berkeley and Oakland district actively opposed the bill. The Berkeley City Council, Californians for Disability Rights, and the Oakland-based Committee for the Black Panther Party were firmly against it, pointing out that, at least in the current health system, no assisted suicide bill could be written that would safeguard its use against the poor and people with disabilities. Opposition from those on whom Aroner had relied for support brought her to tears at one point in the debate over the measure. But it did nothing to lessen her advocacy of her bill. She made it abundantly clear that she was committed to seeing assisted suicide legalized, no matter what the consequences. "It's a very personal issue," she told reporters. "Its not a question of what is good politics or good policy." Although some last minute maneuvering and committee membership changes permitted its passage at the committee level, it soon became clear that AB 1592 would not pass the full Assembly before the session ended. The bill was changed into what is known as a "two year bill," permitting it to be considered again in January 2000 and Aroner stepped up attempts to garner support for it by downplaying public fears.

Concerns that HMOs could view assisted suicide as a cost-cutting measure were declared groundless by Aroner who claimed that the measure would require the patient to initiate any discussion of assisted suicide:

The bill [AB 1592] says to the executives who run HMOs: "You dont get to talk about physician-assisted dying in your boardrooms, or in the back rooms of where you do business, or in your hallways. The only time you get to talk about physician-assisted dying is when a patient asks you about the procedure. That is the only time. Other than that, you are committing a felony. In saying this, Aroner was either uninformed about the content of her bill, or she was being deliberately deceptive. AB 1592 did not allow anyone to "coerce" or use "undue influence" to obtain a request for assisted suicide. However, there was absolutely nothing in the measure that would have prevented HMOs, managed care companies, doctors or anyone else from suggesting, encouraging, offering, or bringing up assisted suicide with a patient who had not asked about it.

Yet, relying on Aroners assertions, rather than on the bills content, newspapers repeated the false assurances. The San Francisco Bay Guardian reported, "The bill would make it a felony for anyone HMOs, family members, doctors to encourage a patient to take the medication." Similarly, an editorial in the Sacramento Bee stated, "In an effort to ensure that the action would be completely voluntary on the part of the patient, AB 1592 would make it a felony for any doctor or HMO or insurance company to suggest the idea. The request would have to be initiated by the patient." As late as December 1999, during a presentation at Berkeleys Alta Bates Medical Center, Aroner was still claiming, "It is a felony if anyone else [but the patient] brings it up." A fact sheet about AB 1592, prepared by Americans for Death with Dignity and distributed by Aroners office at her Alta Bates presentation stated, "The patient must initiate the request for medication." Aroner persisted in misstating the content of her bill. However, her claims did not go unanswered. At each and every presentation, individuals who had carefully studied the proposal refuted her claims and stressed her bills danger to the community.

The strong grassroots opposition had an impact. AB 1592 died from lack of support. It was not brought to the floor of the Assembly by the deadline of January 31, 2000. And, although Aroner later said she intended to introduce another assisted-suicid Brownback Introduces Bill to Fight Assisted Suicide

Friday, August 4, 2006

WASHINGTON U.S. Senator Sam Brownback yesterday introduced the Assisted Suicide Prevention Act, which would prohibit doctors from prescribing federally-controlled substances for the purpose of physician-assisted suicide.

When the law permits killing as a medical treatment, societys moral guidelines are blurred, and killing could gain acceptance as a solution for the chronically ill or vulnerable, said Brownback. Doctor-assisted suicide could actually create a financial incentive for insurance companies to encourage prematurely ending the lives of those in need of long-term care. Last May Brownback chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing to examine the impact of physician-assisted suicide in places where it has been widely practiced. Several experts testified that in countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, where assisted suicide is legal, doctors have started experimenting with euthanasia and infanticide. A September 2005 article in the U.K. medical journal The Lancet reported that half of the newborn babies who died in Flanders, Belgium between August 1999 and July 2000 were helped in that regard by their doctors.

Brownback continued, The American Medical Association and disability rights groups are strongly opposed to physician-assisted suicide because it is antithetical to the doctors role as a healer and it jeopardizes the ability of the infirm and helpless to defend themselves. I doubt Americans want the government to decide when life is worth preserving and when life can be destroyed.

In Vacco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg the Supreme Court unanimously upheld state prohibitions against assisted suicide, ruling that it is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Constitution. In an amicus brief filed in the Washington case, the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association and the American Psychiatric Association stated the following:

Once established the right to physician-assisted suicide would create profound danger for many ill persons with undiagnosed depression and inadequately treated pain, for which physician-assisted suicide rather than good palliative care could become the norm. At greatest risk would be those with the least access to palliative carethe poor, the elderly, and members of minority groups. By only penalizing doctors for using a federally-controlled substance for the stated or undisputed purpose of assisted suicide, and by placing the burden of proof on the Attorney General, the bill does not constrain doctors from offering palliative care that brings pain relief to patients, even if such treatments could hasten death.

Brownback chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights.

The bill after the November 2000 election, she has not done so yet.

House Again Approves Pain Relief Promotion Act

Washington, DC -- October 2000 -- The Pain Relief Promotion Act, pro-life legislation that would limit the ability of doctors to prescribe federally-controlled drugs to be used in assisted suicides, again cleared the House of Representatives. The legislation came in a different form as pro-life leaders in the House attached the bill to legislation concerning tax reform.

The victory may be short-lived, however, because President Clinton has threatened to veto the bill over issues unrelated to assisted suicide.

Members of Congress attached the Pain Relief Promotion Act to the bill, approved by a 237-174 vote, in hope that it would pass the Senate as part of a bill related to another issue. In the Senate, pro-assisted suicide Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) has used legislative maneuvering to tie up the pro-life bill on the Senate side.

Wyden is mulling his options following the House vote, said Josh Kardon, Wyden's chief of staff.

All 43 people who died under Oregon's first-in-the-nation assisted suicide law since it took effect in late 1997 used federally-controlled drugs banned by the legislation. Maine voters will consider legalizing assisted suicide during the November 7th election.

Pro-life House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) said in a statement that the bill "will guarantee that no American suffers the indignity of an agonizing death while also insuring that America does not start down the path toward euthanasia."

Pro-life Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) authored the Pain Relief Promotion Act. Armey inserted it in the tax relief bill, which next goes to the Senate.

Clinton's letter to Republican leaders threatening the veto did not mention the assisted ssue. But White House spokesman Elliot Diringer said Thursday that Clinton has concerns about the legislation and said it should be considered on its own and not as part of a larger bill.

Supporters say the bill makes it clear that aggressive pain treatment is a legitimate medical practice, even if such treatment increases the risk of death. The bill would authorize $5 million in annual grants for medical schools to teach doctors better ways to treat pain.

"The bill has lopsided support in both houses," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. "The only reason this bill didn't go to the president separately is that Wyden was able to gum it up with unrelated issues."

Doctors who deliberately aid a patient's death would lose their license to prescribe drugs and could face a 20-year prison sentence under the bill.

The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pain Management and over 50 other groups have backed the legislation. The House has passed the Pain Relief Promotion Act once, on October 27, 1999, by a vote of 271 to 156.

A State of Chaos

A wise man once said, "Don't believe everything you read in the papers." That is good advice, especially for stories that involve assisted suicide.

Take the media's reporting about the lawsuit between the State of Oregon and United States Attorney General John Ashcroft (Oregon v. Ashcroft), which has generally been abysmal. With reporters generally looking with favor upon legalizing assisted suicide and perhaps motivated by a desire to simplify the complex and popularize arcane issues involved in the litigation, media reports almost always manage to get the gist of the case utterly wrong.

A classic example of this phenomenon occurred earlier this month. When the Department of Justice filed an appellate brief in the case (a non news event), the Associated Press misreported the story from the very first sentence, which read, "The Bush Administration asked a federal appeals court Monday to strike down Oregon's assisted suicide law."

Not only did the Bush administration not ask the federal appeals court to overturn the Oregon law, it has never asked any court anywhere to strike down Oregon's law. Indeed, even if Ashcroft prevails in the case, doctors could still assist patient suicides under state law. Moreover, if doctors prescribed drugs to cause death not covered by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), they would face no federal administrative sanction. So if the case isn't the legality of assisted suicide in Oregon, what is it about? No, not "states' rights" as the media and assisted-suicide advocates claim, but something we don't often hear much about "federal rights" specifically the ability of the United States government to enforce a uniform and nationally consistent standard governing the legitimate medical use of narcotics regulated under the CSA.

Here's the history: When Oregon's assisted-suicide-legalization statute went into effect in 1997, it soon became clear that doctors in the state intended to prescribe federally controlled substances not to treat patients or palliate their pain as the medical uses of these drugs were traditionally permitted under federal law but to intentionally kill.

Not surprisingly, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reacted negatively. One of the purposes for regulating drugs controlled by the CSA is to ensure that their use is limited to legitimate medical purposes, which has never heretofore included ending patient lives by intentional prescribed overdose. But because the wording of the regulations do not actually mention assisted suicide, the DEA issued a regulatory "interpretation" informing doctors that prescribing federally regulated substances to assist suicides would not be a "legitimate medical purpose" under federal law. (An administrative interpretation establishes official policy for enforcing government regulations when the words of a pertinent regulation are unspecific or vague about the matter being interpreted.)

But Attorney General Janet Reno disagreed with the DEA. Pulling rank, which was her right, she wrote a letter to Representative Henry Hyde, via which she issued a new and different regulatory interpretation. Under Reno's policy, a doctor who prescribed controlled substances to facilitate a suicide in a state that had "not authorized the practice," would be subject to federal sanction under the CSA just as the DEA had stated. However, Reno permitted states to opt their doctors out of the general federal approach by expressly legalizing assisted suicide. Thus, in effect, Reno permitted each state to regulate federal law, meaning that there could be different federal regulatory policies in effect under the CSA in different states. Congress never contemplated this state-by-state approach to regulation when it created the CSA.

Relying on Reno's interpretation, a handful of Oregon physicians began to prescribe federally controlled substances for use in assisted suicide. Then two events occurred in 2001 that induced the new attorney general, John Ashcroft, to revise Reno's regulatory interpretation. First, in a case clearly pertinent to the case at hand, the U.S. Supreme Court of the United States handed down a unanimous ruling (United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative), which permitted the federal government to enforce the CSA statutory provision outlawing the use of marijuana in California even though California had explicitly legalized "medical marijuana." Second, Ashcroft ordered the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), to determine whether the Reno or the DEA interpretation to the use of federally controlled substances in assisted suicide was legally correct.

The OLC performed masterfully, producing a 23-page, single-spaced memorandum that extensively reviewed the history and law of suicide and assisted suicide. Yes, the report concluded, "the States are the primary regulators of the practice of medicine," but "they are not its exclusive regulators." Since federal public policy and almost all state laws have long opposed assisted suicide, the report opined, prescribing federally controlled substances to intentionally end life was not a "legitimate medical purpose for the use of drugs regulated by the CSA. (The OLC Opinion has been published in full in the Spring 2002 Issues in Law and Medicine.) Proving that the Ashcroft approach would not nullify the Oregon law, the OLC memo also conceded that "methods of assisting in suicides in which an Oregon physician does not dispense a controlled substance entails no violation of the CSA." (Emphasis within the text.)

Relying on Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and the OLC opinion, Ashcroft decided that the proper legal course was to return national uniformity to the federal enforcement of the CSA, which, after all, is a federal law. Toward that end, he published an interpretation in the Federal Register, informing doctors that, henceforth, prescribing federally controlled substances for use in assisted suicide could cost them their federal privilege to prescribe CSA-regulated drugs. Moreover, in letters to medical associations, Ashcroft made it clear that doctors who had relied on Reno's previous interpretation would not face federal sanction for previous acts of prescribing federally controlled substances for use in assisted suicide.

To the surprise of no one, Oregon filed suit. The trial court ruled that as a matter of law, Ashcroft was wrong, that the states have the exclusive right to control the practice of medicine within their borders. And since Oregon had legalized assisted suicide, that determination must prevail over any federal view to the contrary even with regard to determining the proper medical uses of federally controlled substances. This is no small matter. If the trial-court ruling is upheld on appeal, the power to determine what constitutes a "legitimate medical purpose" for the use of federally controlled substances will be stripped from the federal government and handed to each of the 50 states. Such a result could lead to chaos at least in the medical context since there could be 50 different federal policies with regard to controlled substances and assisted suicide applying in each of the 50 different states.

For example, assume the Oregon Death with Dignity Act remained in effect unchanged, allowing assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. Assume further that Washington State continued to outlaw assisted suicide altogether but that California and Florida permitted assisted suicide not only for the terminally ill but also for the severely disabled and for the elderly who are "tired of living." In Oregon, a doctor could lethally prescribe for a patient with a terminal illness, but if she prescribed barbiturates in lethal dosage for a non-terminally ill disabled person, she could face adverse action from the DEA. At the same time, in California her prescribing for a similarly situated disabled person would not lead to trouble, while in Washington State, prescribing a lethal dosage of a controlled substance for a terminally ill person could result in the doctor losing her prescribing privileges under the CSA.

Nor, it is important to stress, would such chaos be limited to the use of controlled substances for assisted suicide. For example, what if a state passed a law permitting morphine to be used to create euphoria as a "treatment" for depression or anxiety. If states truly have the unlimited right to impose their view on the federal government as to what constitutes a legitimate medical use of federally controlled substances, the federal government would be bound to respect even the most idiosyncratic policy. The result could be the utter disintegration of the CSA and a total fracturing of national drug policy.

Oregon v. Ashcroft is one of the most important public-policy cases in recent years. It isn't in the least about the legality of assisted suicide in Oregon. It isn't a fight over "states' rights." Rather, the ultimate ruling in this case will determine whether the courts will impose upon the nation John Calhoun's long-discredited doctrine of state nullification by permitting states to pass laws opting their citizens out of federal laws and regulations with which state lawmakers happen to disagree.

ASSISTED SUICIDE LAWS STATE BY STATE Currently, 35 STATES have statutes explicitly criminalizing assisted suicide:

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin

NINE states criminalize assisted suicide through common law:

Alabama, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, Vermont, West Virginia

THREE states have abolished the common law of crimes and do not have statutes criminalizing assisted suicide:

North Carolina, Utah, Wyoming

In Ohio, that state's Supreme Court ruled in October 1996 that assisted suicide is not a crime.

In Virginia, there is no real clear case law on assisted suicide, nor is there is a statute criminalizing the act, although there is a statute which imposes civil sanctions on persons assisting in a suicide.

Only Oregon permits physician- assisted suicide.

Even where it's legal, laws vary widely A look at laws governing euthanasia throughout the world:

Oregon: The Oregon Death with Dignity Act (ODDA) passed in 1994, applies only to people who have reached the age of majority (legal age) and have been diagnosed as being terminally ill. It offers the successful applicant assisted suicide; a doctor gives the patient a prescription for a fatal dose of barbiturates that the patient can take. The law is being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Netherlands: In 2002, the government legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia (the doctor administers a fatal injection of drugs). The law is not limited to adults, nor does an applicant for euthanasia have to be terminally ill. The main basis for a request is hopeless and unbearable suffering, regardless of life expectancy.

All cases are reviewed by medical committees, and instances of suspected wrongdoing are referred to judicial investigators. The Dutch government is reviewing a protocol to allow euthanasia, with parental consent, for infants born with terminal and painful illnesses.

Switzerland: Article 115 of the Swiss Penal Code exempts people who assist in a suicide for honorable motives, such as to help bring an end to suffering. Switzerland also allows voluntary organizations to help people, including foreigners, end their lives. Where lethal medication is required, a doctor's prescription is obtained. All acts of assisted suicide are reported to the police and investigated.

Belgium: The Belgian Act on Euthanasia, passed in 2002, defines euthanasia as "intentionally terminating life by someone other than the person concerned at the latter's request." Assisted suicide remains illegal. Requirements include that the patient should have attained the age of majority, which the request be "voluntary, well-considered and repeated" and the patient be "in a futile medical condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated." All acts of euthanasia must be reported to the authorities.

Britain: A bill was introduced this month in the House of Lords that would allow a competent and terminally ill person who has reached the age of majority and is suffering unbearably to request either assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia. It sets requirements including an assessment by an attending physician that the patient is likely to die of natural causes within a few months, that the patient is competent to make the request and that he or she is suffering unbearably. The patient must sign a written declaration of intent. If this has not been revoked within 14 days of the date on which the request was first made, the patients can receive the means to take his or her own life or, if the patient is physically unable to do that, have his or her life ended through voluntary euthanasia. A medical committee would review all cases.

British ethicist calls for legalizing nonconsensual euthanasia

[JURIST] A prominent British medical ethicist is advocating the legalization of euthanasia, including for patients incapable of consent. Len Doyal [CV, PDF], emeritus professor of medical ethics at Queen Mary, University of London, writes in this month's issue of Clinical Ethics [journal website] that physicians cause some patients to suffer a "slow and distressing death" by withdrawing feeding tubes. Changing the law and professional standards would allow doctors to end such patients' lives "swiftly, humanely and without guilt." A British organization that supports physician-assisted suicide, Dignity in Dying [advocacy website], distanced itself from Doyal on Thursday. In a statement [text], the group's chief executive, Deborah Annetts, said: "We do not agree with Professor Doyal that the law needs to be changed for non-competent patients. Dignity in Dying advocates that end of life medical treatment decisions should be based around the competent wishes of terminally ill people." Belgium [JURIST report] and the Netherlands [government materials] have legalized euthanasia in some circumstances.

Doyal supports the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill [text], which is stalled in Parliament, even though it would not allow nonconsensual euthanasia. The bill, which Annetts helped to draft using Oregon's Death with Dignity Act [text, PDF] as a model, would permit assisted suicide for patients with less than six months to live who are experiencing "extreme suffering. The legislation was tabled for six months [JURIST report] by the House of Lords [official website] in May after two physicians groups came out against it [JURIST report]. The British Medical Association [organization website] dropped its opposition to the bill, instead taking a neutral stance. The Guardian has more. BBC News has additional coverage.

Terri Schiavo: Judicial MurderHer crime was being disabled, voiceless, and at the disposal of our mediaby Nat HentoffMarch 29th, 2005 10:59 AM

For all the world to see, a 41-year-old woman, who has committed no crime, will die of dehydration and starvation in the longest public execution in American history.

She is not brain-dead or comatose, and breathes naturally on her own. Although brain-damaged, she is not in a persistent vegetative state, according to an increasing number of radiologists and neurologists.

Among many other violations of her due process rights, Terri Schiavo has never been allowed by the primary judge in her caseFlorida Circuit Judge George Greer, whose conclusions have been robotically upheld by all the courts above himto have her own lawyer represent her.

Greer has declared Terri Schiavo to be in a persistent vegetative state, but he has never gone to see her. His eyesight is very poor, but surely he could have visited her along with another member of his staff. Unlike people in a persistent vegetative state, Terri Schiavo is indeed responsive beyond mere reflexes.

While lawyers and judges have engaged in a minuet of death, the American Civil Liberties Union, which would be passionately criticizing state court decisions and demanding due process if Terri were a convict on death row, has shamefully served as co-counsel for her husband, Michael Schiavo, in his insistent desire to have her die.

Months ago, in discussing this case with ACLU executive director Anthony Romero, and later reading ACLU statements, I saw no sign that this bastion of the Bill of Rights has ever examined the facts concerning the egregious conflicts of interest of her husband and guardian Michael Schiavo, who has been living with another woman for years, with whom he has two children, and has violated a long list of his legal responsibilities as her guardian, some of them directly preventing her chances for improvement. Judge Greer has ignored all of them.

In February, Florida's Department of Children and Families presented Judge Greer with a 34-page document listing charges of neglect, abuse, and exploitation of Terri by her husband, with a request for 60 days to fully investigate the charges. Judge Greer, soon to remove Terri's feeding tube for the third time, rejected the 60-day extension. (The media have ignored these charges, and much of what follows in this article.)

Michael Schiavo, who says he loves and continues to be devoted to Terri, has provided no therapy or rehabilitation for his wife (the legal one) since 1993. He did have her tested for a time, but stopped all testing in 1993. He insists she once told him she didn't want to survive by artificial means, but he didn't mention her alleged wishes for years after her brain damage, while saying he would care for her for the rest of his life.

Terri Schiavo has never had an MRI or a PET scan, or a thorough neurological examination. Republican Senate leader Bill Frist, a specialist in heart-lung transplant surgery, has, as The New York Times reported on March 23, "certified [in his practice] that patients were brain dead so that their organs could be transplanted." He is not just "playing doctor" on this case.

During a speech on the Senate floor on March 17, Frist, speaking of Judge Greer's denial of a request for new testing and examinations of Terri, said reasonably, "I would think you would want a complete neurological exam" before determining she must die.

Frist added: "The attorneys for Terri's parents have submitted 33 affidavits from doctors and other medical professionals, all of whom say that Terri should be re-evaluated."

In death penalty cases, defense counsels for retarded and otherwise mentally disabled clients submit extensive medical tests. Ignoring the absence of complete neurological exams, supporters of the deadly decisions by Judge Greer and the trail of appellate jurists keep reminding us how extensive the litigation in this case has been19 judges in six courts is the mantra. And more have been added. So too in many death penalty cases, but increasingly, close to execution, inmates have been saved by DNA.

As David Gibbs, the lawyer for Terri's parents, has pointed out, there has been a manifest need for a new federal, Fourteenth Amendment review of the case because Terri's death sentence has been based on seven years of "fatally flawed" state court findingsall based on the invincible neglect of elementary due process by Judge George Greer. I will be returning to the legacy of Terri Schiavo in the weeks ahead because there will certainly be long-term reverberations from this case and its fracturing of the rule of law in the Florida courts and then the federal courtsas well as the disgracefully ignorant coverage of the case by the great majority of the media, including such pillars of the trade as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Miami Herald, and the Los Angeles Times as they copied each other's misinformation, like Terri Schiavo being "in a persistent vegetative state."

Do you know that nearly every major disability rights organization in the country has filed a legal brief in support of Terri's right to live?

But before I go back to other Liberty Beatsthe CIA's torture renditions and the whitewashing of the landmark ACLU and Human Rights First's lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld for his accountability in the widespread abuse of detainees, including evidence of tortureI must correct the media and various "qualified experts" on how a person dies of dehydration if he or she is sentient, as Terri Schiavo demonstrably is.

On March 15's Nightline, in an appallingly one-sided, distorted account of the Schiavo case, Terri's husband, Michaelwho'd like to marry the woman he's now living withsaid that once Terri's feeding tube is removed at his insistent command, Terri "will drift off into a nice little sleep and eventually pass on and be with God."

As an atheist, I cannot speak to what he describes as his abandoned wife's ultimate destination, but I can tell how Wesley Smith (consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture)whom I often consult on these bitterly controversial cases because of his carefully researched books and articlesdescribes death by dehydration.

In his book Forced Exit (Times Books), Wesley quotes neurologist William Burke: "A conscious person would feel it [dehydration] just as you and I would. . . . Their skin cracks, their tongue cracks, their lips crack. They may have nosebleeds because of the drying of the mucous membranes, and heaving and vomiting might ensue because of the drying out of the stomach lining.

"They feel the pangs of hunger and thirst. Imagine going one day without a glass of water! . . . It is an extremely agonizing death."

On March 23, outside the hospice where Terri Schiavo was growing steadily weaker, her mother, Mary, said to the courts and to anyone who would listen and maybe somehow save her daughter:

"Please stop this cruelty!"

While this cruelty was going on in the hospice, Michael Schiavo's serpentine lawyer, George Felos, said to one and all: "Terri is stable, peaceful, and calm. . . . She looked beautiful."

During the March 21 hearing before Federal Judge James D. Whittemore, who was soon to be another accomplice in the dehydration of Terri, the relentless Mr. Felos, anticipating the end of the deathwatch, said to the judge:

"Yes, life is sacred, but so is liberty, your honor, especially in this country."

It would be useless, but nonetheless, I would like to inform George Felos that, as Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas said: "The history of liberty is the history of due process"fundamental fairness.

Contrary to what you've read and seen in most of the media, due process has been lethally absent in Terri Schiavo's long merciless journey through the American court system.

"As to legal concerns," writes William Andersona senior psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and a lecturer at Harvard University"a guardian may refuse any medical treatment, but drinking water is not such a procedure. It is not within the power of a guardian to withhold, and not in the power of a rational court to prohibit."

Ralph Nader agrees. In a statement on March 24, he and Wesley Smith (author of, among other books, Culture of Death: The Assault of Medical Ethics in America) said: "The court is imposing process over justice. After the first trial [before Judge Greer], much evidence has been produced that should allow for a new trialwhich was the point of the hasty federal legislation.

"If this were a death penalty case, this evidence would demand reconsideration. Yet, an innocent, disabled woman is receiving less justice. . . . This case is rife with doubt. Justice demands that Terri be permitted to live." (Emphasis added.)

But the polls around the country cried out that a considerable majority of Americans wanted her to die without Congress butting in.

A March 20 ABC poll showed that 60 percent of the 501 adults consulted opposed the ultimately unsuccessful federal legislation, and only 35 percent approved. Moreover, 70 percent felt strongly that it was wrong for Congress to get into such personal, private mattersand interfere with what some advocates of euthanasia call "death with dignity." (So much for the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process and equal protection of the laws.)

But, as Cathy Cleaver Ruse of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops pointed out:

"The poll [questions] say she's 'on life support,' which is not true [since all she needs is water], and that she has 'no consciousness,' which her family and dozens of doctors dispute in sworn affidavits."

Many readers of this column are pro-choice, pro-abortion rights. But what choice did Terri Schiavo have under our vaunted rule of lawwhich the president is eagerly trying to export to the rest of the world? She had not left a living will or a durable power of attorney, and so could not speak for herself. But the American system of justice would not slake her thirst as she, on television, was dying in front of us all.

What kind of a nation are we becoming? The CIA outsources torturein violation of American and international lawin the name of the freedoms we are fighting to protect against terrorism. And we have watched as this woman, whose only crime is that she is disabled, is tortured to death by judges, all the way to the Supreme Court.

And keep in mind from the Ralph Nader-Wesley Smith report: "The courts . . . have [also] ordered that no attempts be made to provide her water or food by mouth. Terri swallows her own saliva. Spoon feeding is not medical treatment. This outrageous order proves that the courts are not merely permitting medical treatment to be withheld, they have ordered her to be made dead."

In this country, even condemned serial killers are not executed in this way.

Article

Was the Autopsy the Final Word on Terri Schiavo's Euthanasia Death

By Diana LynneOctober 11, 2005

LifeNews.com Note: Diana Lynne is the author of "Terri's Story: The Court-Ordered Death of an American Woman," a book on the life and death of Terri Schiavo.

In the minds of many Americans, the results of the autopsy performed on Terri Schiavo served as the final word on the debate over whether the 41-year-old brain-damaged Florida woman should have been dehydrated to death per court order. News outlets across the board delivered the results released June 15 to their audiences as "vindication" for Michael Schiavo for having fought seven long years in court for the right to remove his wife's feeding tube and end her life. At the same time, journalists vilified the Schindlers, Terri's parents and siblings, for having opposed him. "End of story," many say, while others beg to differ.

The body of Terri Schiavo was whisked to the coroner's office on March 31 within hours of her succumbing to 13 days with neither fluids nor food after Pinellas County Circuit Court Judge George Greer ordered her feeding tube removed and barred oral nutrition and hydration.

Nearly 11 weeks later, Pinellas-Pasco County chief medical examiner Dr. Jon Thogmartin confirmed Terri Schiavo died of "marked dehydration," even though he listed the exact cause of death as "complications of anoxic encephalopathy," or brain damage. He declared Terri's heart to be strong and estimated she would have lived another decade if not for the feeding-tube removal.

Thogmartin couldn't provide an answer for the $64,000 dollar question, although the media were largely persuaded he had and variously reported the autopsy "backed Schiavo" in his longtime assertion that his wife was in a persistent vegetative state, or PVS.

Thogmartin and consulting neuropathologist Dr. Stephen Nelson stressed in the autopsy report that PVS is a clinical diagnosis made through physical examination of a living patient not a pathological diagnosis made postmortem. Still, Nelson reported that pathological and anatomical findings, such as her shrunken brain and dilated ventricles, were "consistent" with the PVS diagnosis reached in the court. He pointed out that Terri's brain weighed 615 grams, which is less than half of the expected weight for an adult her age. He also pointed out Terri's brain weighed less than her famous vegetative predecessor Karen Ann Quinlan.

Thogmartin conceded it is unknown how much the long duration of dehydration contributed to the shrinkage of Terri Schiavo's brain.

At the press conference held to announce the autopsy findings, Nelson went further in lending support for the court's diagnosis of PVS. He emphasized the pathological findings were "very consistent" with PVS, but admitted he could not rule out the possibility Terri Schiavo was in a minimally conscious state, or MCS, because there are no published studies on pathological correlations to the clinical diagnosis of MCS.

People Who Attempt Suicide Only Once

Many people who attempt suicide are stopped by others. Many then seek counseling and go on to lead happier and better lives. If they had been "assisted" in their attempts they would never have had that chance. Here are the results of a couple of studies:

One study of 886 people who were rescued from attempted suicides found that five years later only 3.84 percent had gone on to kill themselves.

CHAPTER IV 1.4 Government response/ judicial response Now this day in India euthanasia is not legal. If it becomes legal then what happens below article say some thing about it.

IF MERCY KILLING BECOMES LEGAL

Many people support the right of a terminally ill patient to die - but what if the right becomes an obligation??? And what of the potential for abuse by impatient heirs???

Should dying patients have the right to order their doctors not to start or continue medical treatment? Should doctors be protected from prosecution if they shorten a patient's life expectancy with pain-killing drugs?

Most of us would answer yes to both questions. But does this mean we need a "right to die" law? Or is there more to the issue than first meets the eye?

Public discussion of the treatment of dying patients often confuses two separate issues. First, is the right of the terminally ill person to be allowed to die without being subjected to invasive medical procedures? Second, is the question of whether a dying person should also have the right to hasten his or her own death, and require the help of doctors and nurses to do so.

PATIENTS RIGHTS

It is often overlooked that patients have the common law right to refuse any medical treatment. A doctor who treats a patient against his or her express wishes can be charged with assault. It would be wise to educate people as to their right to refuse treatment. There is no need to convert this well established legal principle into legislation.

Regardless of the intention of "right to die" or "aid in dying" laws, they could very easily open the door to active euthanasia.

In the present climate of opinion, it is easy to imagine a doctor giving a lethal dose of pain-killing drug and then claiming that death was the best way to eliminate physical suffering. If the doctor could also show that the patient had requested the lethal dosage, the court might well interpret the law in the doctor's favor.

Many do not find the prospect of legal voluntary active euthanasia in any way alarming. But two things should give us pause.

First, as a soon-to-be-published Canadian study will show, most health care professionals who work with the dying endorse the patient's right to refuse medical treatment, but oppose legalizing active euthanasia. The professionals recognize that if pain is controlled, as it can be in virtually all cases, very few terminally ill people ask to be put to death. Second, experience in Holland tells us that voluntary Euthanasia can quickly become involuntary euthanasia.

DUTCH EXPERIENCE WITH EUTHANASIA

Holland is widely regarded as one of the world's most civilized countries. Active euthanasia is legal there, but for the past decade the government has not prosecuted doctors who report having assisted their patients to commit suicide.

A recent Dutch government investigation of euthanasia has come up with some disturbing findings. In 1990, 1,030 Dutch patients were killed WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. And of 22,500 deaths due to withdrawal of life support, 63% (14,175 patients) were denied medical treatment WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. Twelve per-cent (1,701 patients) were mentally competent but were NOT CONSULTED.

These findings were widely publicized before the November 1991 referendum in Washington State and contributed to the defeat of the proposition to legalize lethal injections and assisted suicide.

The Dutch experience seems to demonstrate that the "right to die" can soon turn into an obligation. This concept is dangerous, and you could find yourself the victim if Euthanasia becomes legal in North America.

We have all heard and some of us have experienced, moving stories of elderly people in great pain, unable to perform even the most basic human functions, who have asked to die, or have perhaps brought about their own deaths.

What these stories overlook is that today, in almost all cases, it is possible to kill pain without killing the patient. When someone's pain is relieved that person usually wants to go on living. We need to reflect carefully on the consequences of legalizing active euthanasia. If we enshrine the absolute right to die, will it then become illegal to intervene to obstruct would-be suicide? Will pharmacists be obligated to sell a lethal dose of hemlock to anyone who is temporarily depressed?

POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE

We need to think of the potential for abuse if mercy killing becomes legal. What if someone stands to inherit one million dollars when Aunt Gladys dies? Might the heir not find it tempting to nudge her in the direction of accepting a lethal injection? Or, if she didn't get the hint, to make her miserable enough to want it?

If voluntary euthanasia is made legal for "persons of sound mind" there will inevitably be tremendous pressure to provide it for those who "would request it if they were able to" - the mentally ill or handicapped, the senile, etc.

Finally, despite genuine compassion for the suffering of dying people, does there not also lurk in many hearts a less admirable motive? Few people are so tasteless as to link euthanasia and health care costs in the same breath, but there is a widespread few that medical care for the elderly costs more than we can afford. These financial pressures will multiply in the coming years as our population ages.

Many elderly people are already responding to this not-so-subtle message by declaring their willingness to die when their lives are no longer productive. Their reluctance to be a financial burden on the young is admirable, but the long term consequences could be brutal.

What will happen to the trust that people still feel toward their doctors if our country follows Holland? What emotion will elderly or seriously ill patients feel when the nurse approaches them with a full syringe? How soundly will they sleep in the hospital?

THE ALTERNATIVE TO EUTHANASIA

The alternative to legalized euthanasia is not extraordinary, futile treatment to hopelessly dying patients. The alternatives are appropriate medical care - including 1) the withdrawal of treatment upon patient request, or if that treatment serves no therapeutic purpose; and 2) dispensing drugs as necessary to control pain. No doctors, laws, or organizations oppose ceasing care when the time to die has arrived.

WHAT CAN I DO?

Each of us should talk to our loved ones openly about these subjects. Talk to yur doctor, and if you are not comfortable with his or her approach, change doctors. Find out about palliative care and Hospice programs in your community. These emphasize care and comfort for the dying. Support their growth, as this will reduce the attractiveness of legalized euthanasia. Keep informed about the issue of euthanasia and make your views known to politicians and the media. Your actions can help shape the way you and your loved ones will be treated in your last days.

The condition of the patient.

The child with his food with poison.

CHAPTER V5.2 collection of datafor this research work to collect the data we have take the visit of different persons like: doctors ,lawyers, police, teacher, and also try to cover the opinion of common people.in this part of activity we have take 18 opinions. The data analyses of the data are as under.

5.3 Analyses of the data

1. Is Euthanasia good for ill patients?

3.Dont you think that keeping alive the terminally ill patient, whose chances of recovery not possible, multiplying his sufferings?

4.Have you come across any patient who wants euthanasia but because it is illegal so you can not give it?

Should euthanasia be legalized in India or not?

Introduction of the topic; HYPERLINK "http://www.euthanasia.com" www.euthanasia.com

Historical background/ Origin & Development; HYPERLINK "http://www.euthanasia.com" www.euthanasia.com

Historical background/ Origin & Development; HYPERLINK "http://www.euthanasia.com" www.euthanasia.com

Historical background/ Origin & Development; HYPERLINK "http://www.euthanasia.com" www.euthanasia.com

Historical background/ Origin & Development; HYPERLINK "http://www.euthanasia.com" www.euthanasia.com

Modern history; HYPERLINK "http://www.euthanasia.com" www.euthanasia.com

Legislative provisions; HYPERLINK "http://www.euthanasia.com" www.euthanasia.com

Legislative provisions; HYPERLINK "http://www.euthanasia.com" www.euthanasia.com

The legal position; HYPERLINK "http://www.euthanasia.com" www.euthanasia.com

supreme court cases; HYPERLINK "http://www.euthanasia.com" www.euthanasia.com

supreme court cases; HYPERLINK "http://www.euthanasia.com" www.euthanasia.com

legislative proposal; International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

Strong Grassroots Opposition Defeats California Bill; HYPERLINK "http://www.euthanasia.com" www.euthanasia.com

Strong Grassroots Opposition Defeats California Bill; HYPERLINK "http://www.euthanasia.com" www.euthanasia.com

Strong Grassroots Opposition Defeats California Bill; HYPERLINK "http://www.euthanasia.com" www.euthanasia.com

Strong Grassroots Opposition Defeats California Bill; HYPERLINK "http://www.euthanasia.com" www.euthanasia.com

Senator Brownback's Official Website: brownback.senate.gov.

House Again Approves Pain Relief Promotion Act; HYPERLINK "http://www.euthanasia.com" www.euthanasia.com

A state of Chaos: National view on line web site

A state of Chaos: National view on line web site

A state of Chaos: National view on line web site

A state of Chaos: National view on line web site

A state of Chaos: National view on line web site

Associated Press. Provided by Info net List is a daily compilation of pro-life news and educational information.

USA today.com website

jurist legal news & research website

Terri Schiavo:cnn.com website

Terri Schiavo : CNN.com web site

Article: CNN.com web site

Article: CNN.com web site

www.euthanasia.com

Dutch experience with Euthanasia; HYPERLINK "http://www.euthanasia.com" www.euthanasia.com

HYPERLINK "http://www.euthanasia.com" www.euthanasia.com

HYPERLINK "http://www.euthanasia.com" www.euthanasia.com

photographs of the euthanasia patients; HYPERLINK "http://www.euthanasia.com" www.euthanasia.com

PAGE 42

_1258737544.xls

_1258737620.xls

_1253425035.xls

_1258737536.xls