In all these jurisdictions, safeguards, criteria and procedures have been put in place to control practices, ensure social surveillance and prevent euthanasia and the PAS from being abused or abused 5. Certain criteria and procedures are uniform across jurisdictions. Others vary from country to country 5.6. The extent to which these controls and safeguards have been effective in monitoring practices and preventing abuse merits closer scrutiny, particularly by jurisdictions considering legalizing euthanasia and SAP. This article examines the effectiveness of protective measures and the phenomenon of “slippery slopes”. Justice. For a law to be just, it must be based on a sound ethical principle that can be universally accepted; Their definitions and provisions should be clear so that they can be interpreted in the same way by all who read them. This would be a particular problem with euthanasia, because many phenomena associated with death are difficult to define with such precision; Its provisions, in particular those intended to serve as safeguards, must be workable and verifiable and must not contain obvious possibilities for abuse. If any of its important elements were based on opinion and not on facts, this would lead to arbitrariness and be incompatible with justice. “It is understandable, though tragic, that some patients subjected to extreme coercion – such as those suffering from an incurable, painful and debilitating disease – conclude that death is preferable to life. But allowing doctors to engage in assisted suicide would ultimately do more harm than good. Medical assistance in dying is fundamentally incompatible with the physician`s role as a healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious social risks.

Engaging doctors in euthanasia would ultimately do more harm than good. Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physician`s role as a healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would present serious social risks. Euthanasia could easily be extended to incapacitated patients and other vulnerable populations. The involvement of physicians in euthanasia increases the importance of their ethical prohibition. The physician performing euthanasia has sole responsibility for ending the patient`s life. “Strategies are available to treat severe refractory symptoms, manage depression and deal with the anxiety that some people have about the future with an incurable disease. About 10% to 15% of pain and other physical symptoms (such as dyspnea and agitated delirium) cannot be controlled by first- and second-line approaches and become refractory. With these symptoms, there is a possibility of palliative sedation. Palliative sedation is defined as “the supervised use of medications intended to induce a reduced or absent state of consciousness (loss of consciousness) to alleviate the burden of otherwise persistent suffering in a manner that is ethically acceptable to the patient, family and health care providers in patients who are about to die.”55 Its intention is not to hasten death, which distinguishes it from euthanasia. The goal is to achieve comfort at the lowest dose of the sedative (usually with an infusion of midazolam, not opioids) and the mildest sedation. Some patients therefore feel comfortable with mild sedation so that they can continue to interact with the family. In other cases, comfort is achieved only with deep sedation.

Studies have shown that the loss of a sense of dignity and hope and the acceptance of a sense of burden cause some people to request euthanasia and Not 21-23,56. Strategies to improve feelings of dignity, based on empirical studies that examined the concept of dignity in palliative care, have been shown to be effective.57 Similar strategies need to be developed in the areas of hope and burden. The next discussion is largely about Oregon, as assisted suicide has been legal in that state for more than a decade. The research in Oregon and Washington State is a way to investigate many important issues related to the legalization of assisted suicide. These problems include the myth of free choice and self-determination; the fundamental loophole in the prognosis of incurable diseases; name guarantees only; risk to people with depression and psychiatric disorders; Oregon`s minimal data and irreparably flawed monitoring; and the questionable circumstances of the deaths in Oregon. It is instructive to note that the murder laws in the Netherlands are largely the same as elsewhere, and that the Dutch have so far preferred to justify their increasing euthanasia practices by case law or precedent, not by laws. They wanted euthanasia to be seen as a controversial exception to what they consider essential legal principle that innocent life should be considered inviolable. Most of those who promote legal euthanasia elsewhere do not see that maintaining this principle is necessary to maintain the credibility and strength of the rest of the criminal law, because a person must at least be alive to be subject to its provisions. First, there is currently a law regulating euthanasia – it is the Penal Code that prohibits euthanasia as a form of murder, although this law is not universally enforced.

This is because hard evidence is not easy to obtain and the community rightly sees a distinction between compassion and wickedness, even if the motive is not taken into account by the law. Thus, euthanasia is currently practiced by offenders who place their own view of their duty above the law, while other practitioners find their duty fulfilled in the same circumstances by other means, such as good palliative care. The former meet the needs of the patient, while the latter meet the requirements of the patient`s disease. Another form of distortion in the opposite direction is the de facto exclusion from the debate of the right of every innocent person to his life, a true natural right on which criminal law is based. This right must not only be included, but it should logically come first. Lawmakers in several countries and jurisdictions voted against legalizing euthanasia and PAS last year, in part because of the concerns and evidence outlined in this document. These jurisdictions include France, Scotland, England, South Australia and New Hampshire. They chose to improve palliative care and educate health professionals and the public. 7. A transition from voluntary to non-voluntary euthanasia would simply make sense. “The empirical slope cannot be ignored when looking at the facts in the world.

There is still a real possibility of extending euthanasia to infants, people with intellectual or intellectual disabilities and the elderly. Reporting is mandatory in all jurisdictions, but this requirement is often ignored 11,12. In Belgium, almost half of all cases of euthanasia are not reported to the Federal Commission for Control and Evaluation 13. Legal requirements were not met more frequently in unreported cases than in reported cases: a written request for euthanasia was missing more frequently (88% versus 18%), palliative care specialists were consulted less frequently (55% versus .