Euthanasia is not murder Euthanasia is not Murder Debate continues over the issue of euthanasia because of the recent court decision over Dr. Kevorkian has been aquitted of murder in his assisted suicide cases and the court has created precedent for the legalization of selecting death. Euthanasia does take place and is selected voluntarily by patients who are in great pain due to an incurable illness like cancer.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract Background Euthanasia is one of the most intriguing ethical, medical and law issues that marked whole XX century and beginning of the XXI century, sharply dividing scientific and unscientific public to its supporters and opponents.
It also appears as one of the points where all three major religions Catholic, Orthodox, and Islamic have the same view. They are strongly against legalizing mercy killing, emphasizing the holiness of life as a primary criterion by which the countries should start in their considerations.
Studying criminal justice systems in the world, the authors concluded that the issue of deprivation of life from compassion is solved on three ways.
On the first place, we have countries where euthanasia is murder like any other murder from the criminal codes.
Second, the most numerous are states where euthanasia is murder committed under privilege circumstances. On the third place, in the Western Europe we have countries where euthanasia is a legal medical procedure, under requirements prescribed by the law.
In this paper, authors have made a brief comparison of the solutions that exist in some Islamic countries, where euthanasia is a murder, with Western countries, where it represents completely decriminalized medical procedure.
The debate over legalizing euthanasia is like earthquake 1 — 4sharply divides the scientific and unscientific public on its supporters and opponents, and although through literature pervades the opinion that this topic has been exhausted 5. In the maelstrom of issues that this topic opens, legislators all around the world try to find a practical solution, in order to resolve adequately the question of euthanasia.
The line that separates admissible from impermissible merciful deprivation of life through the centuries has consistently been moved: Globally, there are three main ways of regulation of mercy killing. One group of countries equates it with ordinary murder, while the second group represents the view that the euthanasia is privileged murder.
Finally, in the third group euthanasia is decriminalized upon fulfillment of prescribed conditions. In Islamic countries, euthanasia is prohibited, both in the East 6 and in the Bosnia and Herzegovina.
It is seen as non-Islamic 7 and it is equalized to the murder. Accordingly, in the countries where euthanasia is legally punishable, sentences vary from very lenient to the death penalty, as was the case in the Islamic countries 8. Since the debate over the legalization of active euthanasia does not subside for many years, its supporters and opponents have created strong organizations that represent their beliefs about the im morality and in feasibility of the same.
The focus of the problem lies in the question what extent is necessary to respect the life of terminally ill patients, and accordingly provide strong arguments.
In other words, the question is whether in addition to the right on life, as a fundamental human right guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights and Liberties, there is a right to die, established through the right to self-determination.
Thus, opponents of legalization of active euthanasia, as primary argument, emphasize the holiness of life at all costs which is supported primarily with arguments in Islamic and Christian religion, which prohibit any form of suicide 79while its supporters believe that the moral obligation of doctors is to end the life of terminally ill patient who is suffering, but they also highlight the strong individual autonomy in the matters of life and death.
In short, both supporters and opponents summarize most of their arguments on the concept of respect for the patient, where they allocate four forms: Therefore, inter alia, any discussion of euthanasia leads to objections based on religious grounds.
This religious opposition to euthanasia is based on the claim that only someone who is not religious can consider euthanasia as one of the options in the life, but it cannot be for the people who have a religious orientation.
In accordance with beliefs that prevail in some countries, their legislators resolve the issue of euthanasia in accordance with those beliefs, and some solutions will be discussed below. Among the reasons that explain the different treatment of euthanasia between countries, according to some authors, doctors often have a limited experience in this field, because they are not faced with such health condition of the patients This statement is correct.
For example, physicians in Bosnia and Herzegovina do not have any experience with euthanasia. Euthanasia as murder In the world were crystallized three approaches in the legislative regulations of this matter, and we will briefly point out the solutions in some jurisdictions.
Due to the volume of work, we will explain the legislations in which euthanasia is equated with murder, as well as legislations that represent quite the opposite solution.
First, in all Islamic countries, in accordance with religious beliefs, direct euthanasia is prohibited and is equated with the murder.
Iran is no exception. In Iranian law, euthanasia is not explicitly mentioned in the legal texts, but there are some exceptions that lead to a more lenient punishment in some murder cases. However, the euthanasia is a murder with intent, and comes from a religious doctrine of Muslims.
Because of the above, there are still no attempts for broader interventions for legalizing mercy killing Such line of regulation of this sensitive matter kept the legislator in the Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has four similar criminal regulations, because this country has four legislations Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republic of Serbs, and Brcko District.
These parts of the Bosnia do not have a same approach to the regulation of euthanasia, although at first glance it could be said that there is no difference in these criminal laws. It is a specific country, consisting of two entities Federation Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Republic of Serbsand the Brcko District.
All three parts have their own legislation. For some considerations it is important to note that on this territory are valid three criminal codes:Actually, euthanasia could be called a form of suicide, assisted suicide, or even murder, depending on the patient’s level of involvement and consent.
To define euthanasia this . Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Overview. Post Date: 05/30/ Author: Harold O. J. Brown Since the Bible communicates its message through both the failures and triumphs of people, this silence says nothing about the moral legitimacy of suicide.
Proponents of the legalization of euthanasia and/or assisted suicide offer several reasons. Jul 28, · Because the legalization of euthanasia in the Netherlands is the result of decades of debates, an overview is provided of the history of the Dutch debate on euthanasia, including the highlighting of some specific aspects of Dutch culture that contributed to the legalization of euthanasia.
CHAPTER 5 - THE ETHICAL DEBATE page 79 Unlike contemporary proponents of assisted suicide and euthanasia, who regard individual self-determination as central, Plato considered the individual's desire to live or die largely irrelevant to determining whether suicide might be an appropriate act.
As word spread in the late s, the euthanasia movement found itself increasingly on the defensive, scrambling to deny that the form of euthanasia it supported was the same as Nazi murder." Ian Dowbiggin, PhD A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America, The efforts of legalization of euthanasia began in the USA in the first years of the 20th century.
The New York State Medical Association recommended gentle and easy death. Even more active euthanasia proposals came to Ohio and Iowa state legislatures in and but these proposals were rejected.