Euthanasia Debate Research Articles

Best to possibly not be: A prudential argument for antinatalism.

This article starts by examining the present state of death ethics by attending to the euthanasia debate. Given that voluntary active euthanasia has seen strong support in the academic community, insights on the choiceworthiness of continued existence may be derived. Having derived cases of choiceworthy nonexistence (which I refer to as choiceworthy nonexistence [CNE] cases), I extend these intuitions to lives not worth starting, or choiceworthy nonexistence for potential people (which I refer to as foetal-CNE, or fCNE cases). Although I depart from Benatarian antinatalism by rejecting Benatar's claim that all existence is necessarily a harm, I posit a weaker argument that all existence is likely a harm since we cannot know until later in life if an existence is a harm. If I am right, then we have prudential reasons not to bear children, since they are more likely to suffer in lives not worth living than not.

Termination of life to relieve their suffering: Malaysian Medical, Legal, and Nursing Perspectives on Euthanasia

Euthanasia, a contentious and emotionally charged subject, sparks significant public debate and attracts heightened scrutiny compared to less controversial topics. It garners widespread attention and sparks lively discussions among various stakeholders, including academics, religious scholars, politicians, doctors, lawyers, and nurses, due to its involvement in intentionally ending human lives, albeit for compassionate reasons and with the voluntary consent of the individual. The present study aims to delve into the attitudes of doctors, lawyers, and nurses toward euthanasia and its potential legalization in Malaysia. Employing a survey methodology following established quantitative research protocols, the study administered questionnaires to 719 participants to gather their perspectives and opinions on euthanasia. Participants completed the 21-item Euthanasia Attitude Scale (EAS) questionnaire. Data analysis, conducted using SPSS version 29.0, measured data variables through mean, median, and standard deviation. The study revealed a high level of reliability among the variables, with Cronbach's Alpha values of 0.857 for EAS and 0.952 for reasons regarding euthanasia legalization. Pearson's correlation results fell within the range of 0.570 to 0.642, indicating a moderate and positive relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable. The study found that 64.3% of respondents held opposing viewson euthanasia legalization, while 35.7% believed it should be legalized. Primary reasons for opposing legalization included religious beliefs (56.9%), concerns about public corruption (56.2%), and the belief in the sanctity of human life, with no one having the authority to end it (54.9%). Among those in favour of euthanasia legalization, 52.2% viewed it as a compassionate and humane means to alleviate the suffering of terminally ill individuals. The relatively small sample size underscores the necessity for diverse input in future research on euthanasia legalization. These findings underscore the ongoing relevance and need for thorough examination, reflecting the multifaceted nature of the topic. Despite opposition to legalization, the study highlights theenduring complexity of the euthanasia debate and the necessity for diverse perspectives to navigate it effectively

Healthcare Professionals’ Perspectives on Euthanasia Legalization in Malaysia

Euthanasia remains a contentious and emotionally charged subject, drawing considerable public debate and scrutiny in research compared to less controversial topics. Its involvement in deliberately ending human lives, albeit with compassionate intentions and the individual’s voluntary consent, has sparked widespread discussions among various stakeholders including academics, religious scholars, politicians, doctors, lawyers, and nurses. The present study seeks to investigate doctors’ and nurses’ attitudes towards euthanasia and its potential legalization in Malaysia. Employing a survey methodology adhering to established quantitative research protocols, participants were administered questionnaires to gather their viewpoints on euthanasia. The research enlisted 481 respondents who completed the 21-item Euthanasia Attitude Scale (EAS) questionnaire. Analysis of the data was conducted using SPSS version 29.0, employing measures such as mean, median, and standard deviation. The study revealed a strong level of reliability among the variables, with Cronbach’s Alpha values of 0.857 for EAS and 0.952 for reasons pertaining to euthanasia legalization. Pearson’s correlation coefficients ranged from 0.570 to 0.642, indicating a moderate and positive association between independent variables and the dependent variable. Furthermore, the study highlights that 81.3% of respondents held opposing views on euthanasia legalization, while 18.7% supported its legalization. Primary reasons for opposing legalization included religious beliefs (85.6%), the sanctity of human life and the belief that it should not be subject to individual authority for termination (80.2%), concerns about potential exploitation for personal gain (76.1%), and perceptions of public corruption (72.3%). These findings underscore the ongoing relevance and necessity for comprehensive examination, reflecting the multifaceted nature of the euthanasia discourse. Despite the prevailing opposition to legalization, the study underscores the enduring complexity of the euthanasia debate and the imperative of embracing diverse perspectives for effective navigation.

More on the Relevance of Personhood and Mindedness: The Euthanasia Debate

In my first paper for SHERM, I argued that “fetus personhood” is irrelevant to the abortion debate. In this paper, I will argue that personhood is irrelevant to the euthanasia debate as well. Even though a terminally ill patient is a person, ending their life can still be moral. Because personhood (and mindedness) is only instrumentally valuable as means to attaining the good life, if a terminal illness has now made that impossible, it is permissible (when both the doctor and patient agree) for the doctor to help the patient end their life. Thus, euthanasia should be legal.

The Euthanasia Debate and Its Implications on The Legalization of Euthanasia in Indonesia

Today, an ethical issue that is controversial and much debated is the practice of euthanasia. The ethical debate on euthanasia is basically about competing moral visions and values. The research method used in this study is qualitative. Information is collected from publications such as books and journals. The advocates for the legalisation of euthanasia based their reasons on compassion and individual autonomy. They argue that euthanasia is right because it removes human suffering. Everyone has the right to determine how to die, concerning when and how. They believe that certain lives, such as people in a persistent vegetative state, are not just worth living. Those who oppose euthanasia say it is morally wrong to kill helpless people, even at their request. Christians who oppose euthanasia base their arguments on the sanctity of life. A person’s freedom to decide on euthanasia should follow a structure of healthy moral values. Another key consideration in the debate is the slippery slope argument. Currently, euthanasia is prohibited in Indonesia, as stated in Article 344 of the Indonesian Criminal Code. As more countries legalise euthanasia, the writer believes that the call for legalising euthanasia in Indonesia will be intensified. We need to be better informed because law, medicine, beliefs and reason intersect in the euthanasia debate. The writer will give an overall view of the contemporary euthanasia debate from a Christian perspective.

Euthanasia: Promoter of Autonomy or Supporter of Biopower?

The medical developments and their subsequent influence on the duration of human life have brought in the limelight various moral questions. The pathological conditions do not constitute anymore the decisive causes of death, whereas an ascending number of people suffer more by being maintained in life. In this reality, the euthanasia debate seems more apropos than ever. The following article examines the aforementioned issue through the supportive argument of autonomy in contrast to a Foucauldian approach. In essence, based on the Kantian concept of autonomy, several scholars have advocated in favor of the legalization of euthanasia in order that our ability to define not only the course of our life and its duration, but also the way of our death is ensured. However, on the other side, a Foucauldian approach of the issue seems to be equally worth cited and taken into consideration. In accordance with that, the domination of Foucault's concept of biopower would deterministically imply that our choices are totally determined by a form of power that targets at the absolute control over our lives through medicine and legislation. In such a context, euthanasia could not constitute a promoter of autonomy. On the contrary, it would contribute to the absolute escalation of the governmental power that would be imposed on every inch of our lives being exclusively interested in its own prosperity!

Is Left Ventricular Assist Device Deactivation Ethically Acceptable? A Study on the Euthanasia Debate

In the last decades, new technologies have improved the survival of patients affected by chronic illnesses. Among them, left ventricular assist device (LVAD) has represented a viable solution for patients with advanced heart failure (HF). Even though the LVAD prolongs life expectancy, patients’ vulnerability generally increases during follow up and patients’ request for the device withdrawal might occur. Such a request raises some ethical concerns in that it directly hastens the patient’s death. Hence, in order to assess the ethical acceptability of LVAD withdrawal, we analyse and examine an ethical argument, widely adopted in the literature, that we call the “descriptive approach”, which consists in giving a definition of life-sustaining treatment to evaluate the ethical acceptability of treatment withdrawal. Focusing attention on LVAD, we show criticisms of this perspective. Finally, we assess every patient’s request of LVAD withdrawal through a prescriptive approach, which finds its roots in the criterion of proportionality.

The Euthanasia Debate: Importance of Spiritual Care in End of Life

The Euthanasia Debate: Importance of Spiritual Care in End of Life

Adaptation and validation of the Euthanasia Attitude Scale into Spanish.

Considering the extensive debate that is currently taking place in Spain regarding euthanasia, it is important to examine the attitude of professionals who perform most of their duties at the bedside of these patients and their families. The aim of the present study was to present an adaptation and validation of the Euthanasia Attitude Scale and to evaluate its psychometric properties among a sample of nursing students in Spain. A cross-sectional study design was conducted. Non-probabilistic sampling was used to recruit 396 Spanish nursing students. A self-report questionnaire, including socio-demographic data and the Euthanasia Attitude Scale, were used for data collection. The psychometric properties of the Euthanasia Attitude Scale were assessed, including reliability and validity. Fit indices of the overall model were computed. This study was approved by the Hospital Ethical Committee. Students were informed of the aims and procedures and provided written informed consent prior to data collection. The factorial solution comprised four domains and the scale demonstrated adequate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .878). For the exploratory factor analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index of sampling adequacy was .905 and the Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was 2972.79 (p < .001). The initial factorial solution revealed four factors with eigenvalues of 6.78 for the first factor, 1.90 for the second one, 1.29 for the third, and 1.10 for the fourth factor. Moreover, there was a significant relationship between religiosity and the domains of the Euthanasia Attitude Scale. This study obtained a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of .88 which is in consonance with the findings reported by other studies whereby none of the items were removed and the initial structure based on four domains was conserved, with a factorial solution that explains 52.79% of the total variance. The displacement of some items of the domain may be explained by certain religious and/or cultural components as, in accordance with other studies, people with firm religious beliefs are more inclined to refuse euthanasia. According to the findings of this study, the Euthanasia Attitude Scale is a reliable and valid instrument to measure the attitudes toward euthanasia in a sample of Spanish nursing students. This Spanish adaptation will be valuable in future studies examining the attitude and implication of nurses, understanding that nurses are key figures in the euthanasia debate.

The Psychology of Euthanasia

Abstract. Voluntary euthanasia has been legalized in several countries and associated with this development there has been much discussion concerning the relationship between the ethical principle of autonomy and the respect for human life. Psychological science should make a significant contribution to understanding how polarizing positions may be taken in such debates. However, little has been written concerning the implications of this research for the euthanasia debate and about the contributions of psychology. In the same way, very little is written about the psychologist’s role in countries where voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide is legalized. We take as a starting assumption that there are no solutions that will meet everyone’s wishes or needs, but that an understanding of psychological ideas, can assist in developing strategies that may help people with opposing views come to some agreement. In our view, it is fundamental to a fruitful analysis, to leave aside a polarized approach and to understand that an eventual answer to the question of how we approach voluntary euthanasia will only be achieved after the hard process of carefully considering the consequences of having either legalized voluntary euthanasia or its prohibition, in the context of a psychological understanding.

The people speak: social media on euthanasia/assisted dying

In New Zealand, aiding and abetting a person to commit suicide or euthanasia even with consent is unlawful. The introduction of a third Bill on assisted dying to the House...

Bioethics in the news: the values at stake.

Bioethical issues are complex, often involve factual uncertainty, and have broad and long-term potential consequences for individuals, institutions and society. Simplification is a strategy used by so-called ‘progressive’ values advocates to promote acceptance of their values. It results from excluding consideration of complexity, uncertainty and potentiality in the values disputes around bioethical issues. In order to engage effectively in public debates of bioethics issues, it is necessary to understand the current societal values zeitgeist and how it differs from a traditional societal values zeitgeist. Since words are weapons in the values battles, it is necessary to identify how they are being used in the presentation of ethical issues in the media and ethical decision making and, when that use leads to unethical decisions and situations, offer alternatives. Moreover, bioethicists must also identify the causes of biased media coverage of ethics issues, including the phenomenon of ‘post-truth’, and work to eliminate them. In particular, Catholic communicators could play a leading role in defending ethical values which further the ‘common good’ in society, including by protecting vulnerable people. As an example, the current euthanasia debate is examined in some detail.

Informing the Euthanasia Debate: Perceptions of Australian Politicians

In the debate on euthanasia or assisted dying, many different arguments have been advanced either for or against legal reform in the academic literature, and much contemporary academic research seeks to engage with these arguments. However, very little research has been undertaken to track the arguments that are being advanced by politicians when Bills proposing reform are debated in Parliament. Politicians will ultimately decide whether legislative reform will proceed and, if so, in what form. It is therefore essential to know what arguments the politicians are advancing in support of or against legal reform so that these arguments can be assessed and scrutinised. This article seeks to fill this gap by collecting, synthesising and mapping the pro- and anti-euthanasia and assisted dying arguments advanced by Australian politicians, starting from the time the first ever euthanasia Bill was introduced.

The Weight of Living: Autonomy, Care, and Responsibility for the Self

What control should we have over our death? In this paper, I re-examine the way this question has been approached in the euthanasia debate by exploring what it means to take responsibility for one’s own life, especially in the face of mental disability. I do so through presenting anthropological research on the role of care, autonomy, and responsibility in L’Arche—a Christian organization in the United Kingdom in which people with and without learning disabilities share community— to identify, contextualize, and challenge central assumptions about agency in the euthanasia debate.

Human dignity and the future of the voluntary active euthanasia debate in South Africa

Human dignity and the future of the voluntary active euthanasia debate in South Africa

Human dignity and the future of the voluntary active euthanasia debate in South Africa.

The issue of voluntary active euthanasia was thrust into the public policy arena by the Stransham-Ford lawsuit. The High Court legalised voluntary active euthanasia - however, ostensibly only in the specific case of Mr Stransham-Ford. The Supreme Court of Appeal overturned the High Court judgment on technical grounds, not on the merits. This means that in future the courts can be approached again to consider the legalisation of voluntary active euthanasia. As such, Stransham-Ford presents a learning opportunity for both sides of the legalisation divide. In particular, conceptual errors pertaining to human dignity were made in Stransham-Ford, and can be avoided in future. In this article, I identify these errors and propose the following three corrective principles to inform future debate on the subject: (i) human dignity is violable; (ii) human suffering violates human dignity; and (iii) the 'natural' causes of suffering due to terminal illness do not exclude the application of human dignity.

The relation between cultural values, euthanasia, and spiritual care in the Netherlands.

The aim of this paper is to gain some understanding of euthanasia as a Dutch cultural practice, focusing on value orientations that lie beneath the surface of what is made visible in the many national surveys done in the Netherlands. In order to reach this aim, I take 2 steps. In the first place, I give a short sketch of euthanasia as it is understood and practiced in the Netherlands. This is followed by a cultural analysis by the American‑Dutch historian James Kennedy who studied the euthanasia debate in the Netherlands from the 1960s until 1985. Having arrived at some cultural understanding of Dutch mentality, I dive deeper into the understanding of the Dutch value orientations by focusing on the dimension of spiritual care at the end of life. After having defined the concept of spirituality, I sketch the contemporary state of affairs in this area and report how spiritual care in the Netherlands is understood and practiced by discussing the consensus‑based Dutch guideline on spiritual care in palliative care, recent research on hope among palliative care patients in the Netherlands, and an often used Dutch tool for spiritual care: the Ars moriendi model. I end this contribution by sketching how I think that spiritual care at the end of life should be developed further in the Netherlands from a palliative care perspective.

The Face of the Good Death: Euthanasia and Levinas

SOMETHING IS AMISSThe philosopher and medical ethicist Margaret P. Battin has published, adopting the term used in a well-known New York Times Magazine article about her life and work, 'wheelbarrows full' of book and articles championing the cause of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide since entering the debate in the early 1980s.1 It might be somewhat surprising, then, that she began her article on the topic for the 2003 Oxford Handbook of Practical Ethics with the statement: 'Something is amiss with the debate over euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide'.2What makes this claim stand out is that those who support the legalisation of euthanasia, simply using this word from now on, tend to sound quite satisfied with a debate that they seem convinced they are winning or have effectively already won. Organisations in the UK such as the Campaign for Dignity in Dying champion statistics such as 82 per cent of the British population supporting a change in the law on assisted dying for terminally ill adults, rising to 86 per cent among the disabled and only falling to 79 per cent among those who identify as religious.3 The former chairwoman of that of that group, Margaret Branthwaite, expressed a common sentiment among campaigners when she stated that 'it's only a matter of time before it's legalised'.4 While rival organisations such as Care Not Killing marshal rather different statistics and the UK parliament recently rejected a proposed 'right to die' in England and Wales by a significant enough majority that the issue is unlikely to return for some time, the tone of campaigning in the legalisation movement remains that the march of history is on their side and inexorable. If it is only a matter of time, what, then, is amiss?According to Battin, the primary problem with the ongoing debate relates to established patterns of discourse in which the issue is posed in for-andagainst terms. While adversarial debate is vital for social and ethical issues that are 'just breaking open' - a situation where for-and-against analysis isolates, identifies, catalogues and critiques relevant elements - 'once a debate begins to mature, it becomes time to pursue attempts at resolution'.5 Rather than an interminable back and forth over already well-churned ground that promises at best to unearth only an occasional new subtlety, the call for the debate to move from infancy to maturity is a push for not only theoretical but practical consensus. The obvious obstruction to such a development is that the euthanasia debate barely merits its definite article, being highly stratified between a public debate where the strong majority support change and specialised debates in legal, political and medical circles where such consensus is lacking. For example, while the British Medical Association shifted its position on assisted dying to neutrality in 2005, it returned to opposition in 2006 and since then the proposal for adopting a neutral stance has been put to the vote and rejected a further five times.In such a situation, it is not uncommon to hear philosophers promoting their own block of the debate as the keystone around which harmony might be established. As Thomas Nagel wrote in his review of L.W. Sumner's Assisted Death: A Study in Ethics and Law, such a book:provides a superb example of the relevance of philosophy of public policy. The reason is that public policy governing treatment at the end of life is to a great extent shaped by philosophical confusions. It may not be too much to hope that a book such as this will help to rectify the situation.6Indeed, such a hope does not seem entirely unrealistic when sources ranging from the public-facing website NHS Choices to Medical Ethics Today: The BMA's Handbook of Ethics and Law do indeed engage with the issues and a vocabulary that was developed in the adversarial debates of philosophers. However, without giving too much credence to traditional divisions between analytic and continental philosophy, it is notable that both public and specialised discussions engage with a relatively limited spectrum of thought in terms of its provenance, style and range of references. …

"The Euthanasia Debate" at the Sydney Town Hall: Reflections of a palliative care nurse.

On August 13, 2015, I attended “The Euthanasia Debate” between two renowned bioethicists, Prof. Peter Singer and Sydney’s Catholic Archbishop Anthony Fisher, O.P., on the question: “Should voluntary euthanasia be legalized?” Conceived by a student member of the Catholic Society of St. Peter, the event was held in the Sydney Town Hall after being transferred from the original University of Sydney venue when demand for tickets greatly exceeded the organizers’ expectations. This was my first time in the Sydney Town Hall, and it is beautiful. Upon entering I found the grand Victorian lobby chandelier lit and filled with people talking animatedly. Perhaps because my primary focus is palliative care for older people, I was initially surprised to see many attendees aged in their early twenties. A woman, who moved through the crowd as though on a mission, looked familiar to me and later I remembered meeting her at the bedside of her mother who had advanced cancer and refractory pain. There also was a well-known television producer and interviewer, observant and thoughtful looking as he wandered among the people. Best of all in my eyes was the vision of the Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia, who are active in Catholic youth education and formation in Sydney, entering the lobby under a high archway as though floating in their long, white habits. My motivation to attend the debate was to learn how to better express the truth about euthanasia, in writing and conversations with patients, families, and the health carers I work with and teach. I have always known euthanasia to be morally wrong and a flawed argument for the relief of suffering, but since returning to the Church and striving to look always upon the life, passion, and resurrection of Christ, I have come to understand this even more profoundly. With legislation supporting euthanasia in different parts of the world, those threatening elsewhere, and a shift towards construal of euthanasia as a compassionate act in societal and professional dialogue in Australia, there is urgency to my learning. It is no longer enough to simply know in my heart why euthanasia is wrong and ineffective for the relief of suffering, there is the need to become capable of helping others think about, talk through, and develop an informed understanding of these issues, The Linacre Quarterly 83 (1) 2016, 3–5

Aruna Shanbaug and workplace safety for women: the real issue sidestepped.

Aruna Shanbaug (born 1948) passed away on May 18, 2015 and the coverage that the news got on the front pages and the primetime news slots surprised everyone. One wonders whether this news would have got so much coverage had it not involved the sensational euthanasia debate. That Aruna should have been projected as the face of the euthanasia debate in India disturbs those who have been following her story. The fact remains that it was a debate set off by Pinki Virani - for people like Aruna - with due respect to the former's earnest intentions and efforts. That Aruna was subjected to violence in November 1973 was nothing but the potential experience of every working woman in India. Aruna should be remembered for that reason - a cause much more bitter than passive euthanasia. She has been and will remain the face of working women in India against whom male prejudice has remained unabated even 42 years after Aruna became a victim. How many Arunas were assaulted, murdered and violated physically, emotionally and mentally during this period? To a substantial number of Indians, women still belong to the hearth and the harem, and the rapist of the Delhi girl whom we nicknamed Nirbhaya told us this impudently from within the Tihar jail in Delhi (1)i. India as a society seems to refuse to recognise the ethical issues associated with denying women their right to be safe at their workplaces. Language: en