Euthanasia Pros Essay

End of Life Clinic In 2012, the Dutch Association for Voluntary Euthanasia (NVVE) founded the End-of-Life Clinic or Levenseindekliniek (see Levenseindekliniek).The Dutch have reported their practices each 5 years since 1990 (Table 1) (van der Maas et al, 1991; van der Maas et al, 1996; Onwuteaka-Philipsen et al, 2003; van der Heide et al, 2007; Onwuteaka-Philipsen et al, 2012b; van der Heide et al, 2017).‘The 1960s and 1970s were a watershed for Dutch society.

Tags: Trademark Law EssayMulti Paragraph Essay RubricAbstract Format For Research Paper5 Year Business Plan OutlineExample Of Good Research ProposalOpinion Essay WritingDissertation Business IntelligenceBridge Design Research PapersCask Of Amontillado Symbolism EssayWvu Honors Thesis

Withholding or withdrawing therapy may be entirely clinically appropriate, the possibility of life-shortening being acknowledged, but not intended.

In contrast, withholding or withdrawing therapy performed with the intention of hastening death or ending life, is no different to euthanasia—these are deaths caused by the active intervention of the physician.

Intensified treatment of pain and symptoms may be entirely clinically appropriate, the possibility of life-shortening being acknowledged, but not intended.

In contrast, intensified treatment of pain and symptoms performed with the intention of hastening death or ending life, is no different to euthanasia—these are deaths caused by the active intervention of the physician.

It is similarly a deliberate act with the express intention of ending life and is not ethically or morally distinguishable from euthanasia.

The performance of assisted suicide by persons other than physicians, as occurs in Switzerland, is ethically and morally equivalent to PAS.

Paul van der Maas (Department of Public Health, Erasmus University, Rotterdam): ‘…whether the acceptance of euthanasia or assisted suicide when it is specifically requested by a greatly suffering, terminally ill, competent patient is the first step on a slippery slope that will lead to an unintended and undesirable increase in the number of cases of less careful end-of-life decision making and to the gradual social acceptance of euthanasia performed for morally unacceptable reasons.’ (van der Maas et al, 1996).

The data for the period 1990 to 2015 show The Dutch view One of the better descriptions of the ‘slippery slope’, written in 2017, went as follows: ‘The core of this argument is that as soon as euthanasia is allowed at all, even if only under certain conditions, it will necessarily follow that euthanasia will in future be performed under less stringent conditions and will eventually degenerate into an absolutely abject form of euthanasia, such as killing people involuntarily.’ The alternative view It is not possible to list all the publications attesting to the existence of a slippery slope, but I include several good reviews that I have seen (Hendin, 1997a; Jochemsen and Keown, 1999; Hendin, 2002; Keown, 2002; Ten Have and Welie, 2005; Randall and Downie, 2009; Keown, 2012 & 2013; Sprung et al, 2018; Keown, 2018).

Continuous sedation until death (CSD) for the management of severe and refractory symptoms in the last days or week of life may be entirely clinically appropriate therapy, the possibility of life-shortening being acknowledged, but not intended.

In contrast, CSD performed with the intention of hastening death or ending life is no different to euthanasia—these are deaths caused by the active intervention of the physician.