Legalizing Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide: The Illusion of Safeguards and Controls

Abstract

Euthanasia or assisted suicide—and sometimes both—have been legalized in a small number of countries and states. In all jurisdictions, laws and safeguards were put in place to prevent abuse and misuse of these practices. Prevention measures have included, among others, explicit consent by the person requesting euthanasia, mandatory reporting of all cases, administration only by physicians (with the exception of Switzerland), and consultation by a second physician. The present paper provides evidence that these laws and safeguards are regularly ignored and transgressed in all the jurisdictions and that transgressions are not prosecuted. For example, about 900 people annually are administered lethal substances without having given explicit consent, and in one jurisdiction, almost 50% of cases of euthanasia are not reported. Increased tolerance of transgressions in societies with such laws represents a social “slippery slope,” as do changes to the laws and criteria that followed legalization. Although the initial intent was to limit euthanasia and assisted suicide to a lastresort option for a very small number of terminally ill people, some jurisdictions now extend the practice to newborns, children, and people with dementia. A terminal illness is no longer a prerequisite. In the Netherlands, euthanasia for anyone over the age of 70 who is “tired of living” is now being considered. Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide therefore places many people at risk, affects the values of society over time, and does not provide controls and safeguards.

Legalizing physician-assisted suicide and/or euthanasia: Pragmatic implications

“…Some fear losing control of circumstances, others may fear being alone in facing death, and some are concerned about dependence on others (Kelly & Varghese, 1996;Oldham et al, 2011). Euthanasia may be seen as a solution to being a burden on the family (George et al, 2005;Pereira, 2011), exemplified in this scenario:…”

One Way Ticket-Route To Death: How Right Is To Promote As A Commercial Initiative

“…For this reason, the so-called countries, which advocate an application contrary to the approaches of the global organizations to which they belong, constitute a contradiction. Elaborated by author(s): Adams and Nys, 2003;Anonymous, 1988;Appel, 2004;BBC, 2015a;BBC, 2015b;BBC,2016;Belgian Ministry of Justice, 2002;Burleigh and Boyd, 1995;Care, 2016;Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, 2015;Emanuel, 1994;End of Life Law in Canada, 2016;Globalnews, 2016;Griffiths, Weyers and Adams, 2008;Health Law Institute, 2016;Huffingtonpost, 2016;Hurst and Mauron, 2003;Hurst and Mauron, 2016;Inceoğlu, 1998;Jans, 2005;Julezs, 2016;Kroneman, Boerma, Berg, Groenewegen, Jong, Ginneken, 2016;Legilux, 2009;Luxembourgpublic, 2016;Manav, 2016;Materstvedt, et al 2003; National Academy of Science and Engineering and Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities, 2015;Pereira, 2011;ProCon, 2017;Rob Jonquiere, private interview 05.12.2016;Sayid, 1983;Scherer and Simon, 1999;Smets, Bilsen, Cohen, Rurup and Deliens 2010;Stajano, 2015;Varadarajan, Freeman and Parmar, 2016;World, 2015. …”

Pereira’s Attack on Legalizing Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide: Smoke and Mirrors

“…In a paper published in Current Oncology, University of Ottawa palliative care physician Jose Pereira states that the "laws and safeguards [in countries in which euthanasia or assisted suicide have been legalized] are regularly ignored and transgressed in all the jurisdictions and that transgressions are not prosecuted" 1 . He purports to demonstrate that the safeguards and controls put in place in the permissive jurisdictions are an "illusion" 1 .…”

“…He purports to demonstrate that the safeguards and controls put in place in the permissive jurisdictions are an "illusion" 1 .…”