Euthanasia is an old issue; the word itself comes from the Greek words eu, “good” and thanos, “death” that means "good death" together. In recent years the debates about euthanasia took a wider scale: politicians, judges, religious people, academics and even the laymen are talking about it. Many textbooks are written and there are tens of websites to discuss this controversial matter.
How satisfactory is the existing law to deal with euthanasia? Shall euthanasia be legalized? Is it humane to let people to suffer against their wills? Human beings are entitled to autonomy in life; does not this mean that they should have a right to choice their death with dignity? Why some forms of euthanasia are legalized and some parts of society are authorized to decide for others? From another side we may ask ourselves that if euthanasia legalized, does not this mean opening gates for abuses by doctors, greedy relatives and other caretakers. If we let euthanasia to go on legally, how we can make a difference between human beings and other instruments and tools we use them in our lives.
This report tries to evaluate how satisfactory are the legal, moral, and social approaches towards euthanasia. It tries to show how far they can answer the fundamental questions regarding this issue. Can they fill the gap between myth and reality regarding the mysterious world of euthanasia!
Passive euthanasia is withdrawing; stopping life sustaining treatment from a terminally ill person or withholding, which means not giving the life sustaining treatment at the first place. This is now recognized legal in the English Legal system.
Mason et al describe passive euthanasia as they said:
Passive euthanasia is confined to withdrawal of life- sustaining treatment in the incompetent and refusal of further treatment by the competent patient where death is the intended outcome- with the "do not resuscitate order" providing a virtually distinct category.
Passive euthanasia is legal because they argue that it is not an act of killing or murder but it is an omission, although many academics may argue that switching off a ventilator or stopping the vital drugs is an act of killing in itself. Mason et al said:
A doctor who knows that his failure to treat will result in death should accept the same responsibility for that death as if he had brought it about through a positive act.
However, the same writer pays attention to the difference between acts and omissions as mentioned by Lord Mustill in Bland:
The English criminal law … draws a sharp distinction between acts and omissions, if an act resulting in death is done without lawful excuse and with intent to kill it is murder. But an omission to act with the same result and with the same intent is in general no offence at all.
The patient's right to stop treatment, known as passive euthanasia is legalized in UK because it is agreed that keeping a person alive in pain and misery against her/his wishes is against the basic human rights.
Neither the law nor medical ethics requires that "everything be done" to keep a person alive. Insistence, against the patient's wishes, that death be postponed by every means available is contrary to law and practice. It is also cruel and inhumane.
Mason et al further confirm passive euthanasia when they said:
There is ample evidence that the right of the competent individual to refuse treatment is ingrained in the common law and human rights law- and this right persists even though it may result in the patient's death; moreover, a refusal can take the form of a declaration of intention never to consent in the future.
However, it can be argued that the law is not satisfactory in this field: when the law authorized a doctor to withdraw/withhold vital treatment from a competent patient or gives him/her the right to stop treatment, does not this means a right to die or may be to kill? It can be argued that the legal distinction between acts and omissions is not satisfactory in this field because switching off a ventilator or removing a feeding tube needs an act more than an omission and brings the same result which is death.
Active euthanasia is an act when a doctor uses medicines or drugs, which he/she virtually sure it kills or shortens the patient's life. This kind of euthanasia is illegal in the United Kingdom until now.
The requirements for identifying an act as murder are: Actus Reus, which is killing another human being and, mens rea, which is an intention of kill or causing grievous bodily harm. If a doctor gives a lethal dose of medicine to a patient who is virtually sure kills him or shortens his life he commits an act of murder. Devlin J explains the attitudes of law in UK towards a positive act of euthanasia by saying:
