Hands together dying using Nembutal pentobarbital sodium

What is Voluntary Euthanasia?

Voluntary euthanasia is the practice of ending a life in a painless manner. Voluntary euthanasia (VE) and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) have been the focus of great controversy in recent years.Voluntary refusal of food and fluids (VRFF) (also called voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, or VSED) or Patient Refusal of Nutrition and Hydration (PRNH) is bordering on euthanasia. Some authors classify it as a form of passive euthanasia,[5] while others treat it separately because it is treated differently from legal point of view and often perceived as a more ethical option.[6] VRFF is sometimes suggested as a legal alternative to euthanasia in jurisdictions disallowing euthanasia

Voluntary and involuntary euthanasiaVoluntary euthanasia occurs at the request of the person who dies. … Involuntary euthanasia occurs when the person who dies chooses life and is killed anyway. read more

How is voluntary euthanasia performed?Active voluntary euthanasia can be said to occur when medical intervention takes place, at the patient’s request, in order to end the patient’s life. … This can include administering high doses of painkillers that hasten death or providing and/or injecting a lethal substance or dose to end life. read more

Voluntary euthanasia refusing burdensome medical treatment. asking for medical treatment to be stopped, or life support machines to be switched off. refusing to eat. simply deciding to die. Learn more

What is the difference between euthanasia and assisted dying?Physician-assisted suicide entails making lethal means available to the patient to be used at a time of the patient’s own choosing. By contrast, voluntary active euthanasia entails the physician taking an active role in carrying out the patient’s request, and usually involves intravenous delivery of a lethal substance. Visit more

ive Conditions Often Proposed as Necessary for Candidacy for Voluntary Euthanasia

Advocates of voluntary euthanasia typically contend that if a person

  1. is suffering from a terminal illness;
  2. is unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure for that illness during what remains of her life expectancy;
  3. is, as a direct result of the illness, either suffering intolerable pain, or only has available a life that is unacceptably burdensome (e.g., because the illness has to be treated in ways that lead to her being unacceptably dependent on others or on technological means of life support);
  4. has an enduring, voluntary and competent wish to die (or has, prior to losing the competence to do so, expressed a wish to be assisted to die in the event that conditions (a)-(c) are satisfied); and
  5. is unable without assistance to end her life, FAQ

then there should be legal and medical provision to facilitate her being allowed to die or assisted to die. About us

Objection 3

According to the traditional interpretation of the ‘doctrine of double effect’ it is permissible to act in a way which it is foreseen will have a bad effect, provided only that

  1. the bad effect occurs as a side-effect (i.e., indirectly) to the achievement of the act that is directly aimed at;
  2. the act directly aimed at is itself morally good or, at least, morally neutral;
  3. the good effect is not achieved by way of the bad, that is, the bad must not be a means to the good; and
  4. the bad effect must not be so serious as to outweigh the good effect. click here to contact
error: Content is protected !!