Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Supreme Court of the United States has not dealt with "quality of life issues" or "futility issues" and appears to only condone active or passive "euthanasia" (not legally defined) when there is clear and convincing evidence that informed consent to the euthanasia, passive or active, has been obtained from the competent patient or the legal ...
Death is a natural process of life thus there should not be any laws to prevent it if the patient seeks to end it. What we do at the end of our lives should not be of concern to others. If euthanasia is strictly controlled, we can avoid entering a slippery slope and prevent patients from seeking alternative methods which may not be legal. [1]
Involuntary euthanasia is widely opposed and is regarded as a crime in all legal jurisdictions, although it has been legal in the past in some jurisdictions, notably Nazi Germany. Reference to it or fear of it is sometimes used as a reason for not changing laws relating to voluntary euthanasia. [2] [3]
Pedro Almodóvar has argued that euthanasia should be available “all over the world”, saying: “It should be regulated and a doctor should be allowed to help his patient.”. The Spanish ...
The right to die is controversial in America — euthanasia is legal in only 10 states, and Washington, D.C. — but euthanasia and assisted suicide are permitted in Spain.
“There should be the possibility to have euthanasia all over the world,” he said to applause from reporters. “It should be regulated and a doctor should be allowed to help his patient.”
Active voluntary euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Passive voluntary euthanasia is legal throughout the US per Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. When the patient brings about their own death with the assistance of a physician, the term assisted suicide is often used instead. Assisted suicide is ...
It is possible to support, for example, voluntary euthanasia while denying non-voluntary euthanasia, just as it is possible to support both – the distinction comes not from a logical inconsistency, but a choice of principles, such that a focus on euthanasia as personal choice will support voluntary euthanasia but not non-voluntary euthanasia ...