Murder or mercy? The debate over active euthanasia has only just begun.

I argue that ‘classical liberalism’ does not sanction any easy permissiveness about suicide and active euthanasia. I will use liberal arguments to argue that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is real and that assisted suicide is, at the very least, deeply troubling when viewed from an authentic liberal perspective. The usual argument for active euthanasia is a utilitarian, not a liberal argument, as recent calls to eliminate the conscientious objection rights of doctors who refuse participation in such procedures plainly demonstrate. The paper focuses on arguments in the public sphere (such as those articulated by James Rachels).

In her article 'Active and Passive Euthanasia' (Philosophy 53, No. 204, April I978) Natalie Abrams argues that active euthanasia is preferable to passive euthanasia on the basis of a moral difference between acting and refraining in 'positive' cases where the outcome is desirable for the victim. She contends that in positive cases we intuitively feel an individual who merely allows a good thing to occur is not as praiseworthy as one who actually does something to bring it about, assuming identical motives and outcomes. Thus if Dick rescues his wife from a flaming building, we find him praiseworthy. But if Ernest's wife staggers out of a flaming building by herself before Ernest is able to find a way to go into the building to take her out, we do not believe him praiseworthy. Abrams then claims that euthanasia should be classified as a positive case, since it is performed only where the outcome is believed to be the more desirable outcome for the patient. Therefore a doctor who acts to bring about the death of a patient is more praiseworthy than one who merely allows the death to occur. There are a number of questionable points in Abrams's argument. For example, we may disagree that euthanasia should be classified as a positive case. Are there not cases in which death is mistakenly judged to be desirable for the patient? Also, one could argue that Ernest is just as praiseworthy as Dick, not for his inaction in allowing another to live but for his actions in attempting a rescue. After all, Ernest did not merely allow another to live. He took certain steps with the intention of bringing about the positive outcome. However, I will grant Abrams these points. Still, I believe her argument fails, because it is not true that given identical motives allowing a positive outcome to occur is never as praiseworthy as acting to bring about that outcome. Consider the following pairs of cases:

Both active euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal in The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg and, most recently, in Canada. Examination of national legislations of countries where both active euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal. The number of accomplished active euthanasia cases and that of assisted suicide cases. Analysis of national statistical data. Comparison of statistical data before and after 2010. Comparison of the related practices in the surveyed countries. The number of active euthanasia cases markedly predominates over the number of assisted suicide cases. Cancer is a main reason for active euthanasia, or assisted suicide. In countries with a larger population, the number of active euthanasia cases is higher than that in countries with a smaller population. Regarding the fact that the applicants for active euthanasia withdraw their requests in a smaller number than the applicants for assisted suicide, patients prefer the choice of active euthanasia. Since the related legislative product is too recent in Canada at present, it may be only presumed that a certain preference will also develop in the related practices in Canada. Orv. Hetil., 2016, 157(40), 1595-1600.

Several surveys of the German population concerning the attitude towards euthanasia in patients with terminal illness yielded contradictory results, ranging from high acquisition to high refusal rates. After a critical discussion of the methodological concepts of these investigations, we present the results of a representative study of 1957 German persons (age range: 14 - 96 years) which was performed by the institute USUMA in February 2001. Four different types of euthanasia were included in the study: active, passive, and indirect euthanasia as well as physician's assisted suicide. The affirmative response categories were "declared will and unbearable pain", "declared will", "referred will", and "in the responsibility of the physician". Additionally, we asked to state the personal preference in the case of an own incurable illness. The resulting frequency distributions stress the autonomy of the patients (declared will) and the legal forms of professional euthanasia (passive and indirect euthanasia), independent from the degree of pain. The rank order of the hypothetic personal preferences was: passive euthanasia (26.1 %), active euthanasia (21.1 %), indirect euthanasia (13.1 %) and assisted suicide (6.2 %). For each category the hypothetic personal will to utilize euthanasia personally is markedly lower than the consent to legalize euthanasia in the society. This points to a diminished readiness of the population to seek for euthanasia. Persons aged 60 years and above deny all types of euthanasia significantly more often than younger persons. Persons with subjectively bad health status prefer the category "in the responsibility of the physician" more often than healthy subjects. The representative study proves that there is no polarized public opinion concerning euthanasia, rather there is a picture of high complexity.

The author examines various claimed differences between active and passive euthanasia and, if there are differences, whether they are morally significant. He refutes arguments based on acting vs. not acting, intention, double effect, cause of death, and natural law theory. Reichenbach proposes that the most helpful distinction is the one between intentional killing (active euthanasia) and appropriate treatment for the dying or terminally ill (passive euthanasia). Significant moral difference, however, rests on the contention that intentional killing is always wrong and that, all else being equal, dying by natural means is intrinsically good, whereas dying by unnatural means is not.

Debates about the moral dilemmas of euthanasia date back to ancient times. Many of the historical arguments used for and against the practice remain vu I id today. Indeed, any...

BackgroundDoctors are increasingly faced with end-of-life decisions. Little is known about how medical students approach euthanasia. The objective of this study was to evaluate, among medical students and residents, the view on euthanasia and its variants; correlate such a view with empathy and religiosity/spiritualism; and with the stages of medical training in Brazil.MethodsThis is an exploratory cross-sectional study using an online questionnaire to be filled out on a voluntary basis among medical students and residents, consisting of: socio-demographic data, an empathy questionnaire and questions with elaborate clinical cases that typify situations of the variants of euthanasia.ResultsFrom 1550 invitations, 273 volunteer participants responded (17.6%). The percentages of strong agreement/agreement on the concepts were: passive euthanasia (72.9%); active euthanasia (22.3%), orthothanasia (90.1%), dysthanasia (18.7%), assisted suicide (33%) and sedation (82.8%). Passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, dysthanasia and assisted suicide showed greater refusal with increasing length of medical training. Religious belief and degree of empathy did not significantly influence the opinion about the concepts. Strong agreement/agreement were: passive euthanasia (72.9%); active euthanasia (22.3%), orthothanasia (90.1%), dysthanasia (18.7%), assisted suicide (33%) and sedation (82.8%).ConclusionsPassive euthanasia, active euthanasia, dysthanasia and assisted suicide showed greater refusal with increasing length of medical training. The external validation of our findings relies on the distinct legal, cultural, and religious frameworks found across various countries.

The legal consensus that has evolved through adjudication and legislation since the Karen Quinlan case in 1976 is founded on the premise that there is a bright line between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. Indeed, the term passive euthanasia is often eschewed in favor of less emotionally-laden terminology such as "forgoing life-sustaining treatment" or "terminating life support" so as to further sever any possible connection with active euthanasia. Legal approval has been bestowed upon passive euthanasia under certain circumstances while active euthanasia is routinely condemned. This consensus was put to a test in 1990 when the United States Supreme Court ruled on the Cruzan case. However, the Court's narrow decision did not upset the consensus, and in the most significant appellate decisions handed down by state courts since Cruzan, there has been a reaffirmation--and possibly even an extension--of the consensus. Two other threats to the legal consensus about forgoing life-sustaining treatment have begun to manifest themselves: the increasing pressure for mercy killing and "futility" cases. Both of these challenge the fundamental premises on which the consensus is grounded.

In 1973 a lady doctor who had killed her sick mother was sentenced by the court in Leeuwaarden to a one-week suspended prison sentence. The judge declared that the court never doubted the defendant's integrity. The trial initiated the present open practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands. Many people expressed support for the accused doctor, and in the wake of this campaign two associations were founded: the Dutch Society (Vereniging) for Voluntary Euthanasia, and the Foundation (Stichting) for Voluntary Euthanasia. The public had been prepared for these events, first and foremost by the publication of Dr. Jan Hendrik van den Berg's book Medical Power and Medical Ethics in 1969.(1) In this work Van den Berg, a professor of neurology, declared that the ethics of unconditional respect for human life belonged to the past, to the time when medicine had been powerless. The new era of medical power required a new ethic allowing doctors to terminate human life.(2) Why it should be so was not clear, since Van den Berg failed to validate this assertion. However, his vivid pictures of human suffering (supposedly created by doctors exercising their power), the serene descriptions of euthanasia, and the daring reversal of many habits of thinking immediately captured the public imagination. The book went through ten printings in the first year and twenty-five in all. Since this work has strongly influenced Dutch public opinion on the issue of euthanasia, it is important to know the ideas it promoted. Van den Berg insisted that defective children must not be allowed to live.(3) In his view doctors are not only authorized(4) but have the duty to terminate meaningless lives.(5) In his book Van den Berg did not mention voluntary active euthanasia, but advocated involuntary active euthanasia. In all model case histories he cited, the decisions to actively terminate the patients' lives were taken by the doctors and the patients' families without the patients' knowledge. Van den Berg condemned the families who failed to request euthanasia and showed an attachment to hopelessly ill patients, this being a dishonor and an adherence to the old dismissed ethics.(6) Neither the patient's nor the family's consent was necessary to carry out euthanasia: in case of the family's refusal a committee of doctors and laymen should impose the decision.(7) Thus, Van den Berg went further than the demand to release the destruction of lives unworthy of being lived: he planned the enforcement of such policy and made provisions for the suppression of possible resistance. The book was an enormous publishing success and evoked virtually no protests. On the contrary, many concurring declarations followed, issued by Protestant ministers,(8) Protestant church authorities,(9) Catholic intellectuals,(10) ethical bodies,(11) and even by leaders of the movement in favor of voluntary euthanasia.(12) Apparently, Van den Berg expressed the views held by a large part of the public. This was later confirmed by opinion polls,(13) which showed that 77% of the public supported involuntary euthanasia. The Present Open Practice of Euthanasia During the Leeuwaarden trial it was revealed that some practice of euthanasia had already existed: in support of the defendant, eighteen doctors declared that they, too, had actively terminated the lives of their patients. It is certain, however, that after the Leeuwaarden trial the practice of euthanasia increased. How many people at present die by active euthanasia is not known because so long as Article 293 of the Dutch Penal Code, which makes euthanasia a punishable crime, remains formally valid, many doctors who perform euthanasia do not state it in the death certificates. All published figures are estimates, often based on questionnaires. The most often cited figure is ten thousand cases of active euthanasia a year.(14) However, a recent study done by VARA TV Corporation and interview polling firm has indicated that the number of cases of active euthanasia may be as high as 18,400 a year, and that in another 21,600 cases medical treatment is withdrawn with intention to cause death. …

Active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: the German discussion

Distinguishing Between Active and Passive Euthanasia

To find out why Dutch general practitioners (GPs) and nursing home physicians (NHPs), and patients (according to their physician) opt for active voluntary euthanasia rather than for physician-assisted suicide, or vice-versa. The following definitions were used in the study: Euthanasia is the intentional termination of life, by someone other than the patient, at the patient's request; physician-assisted suicide is intentionally helping a patient to terminate his or her life at his or her request. Two descriptive, retrospective studies. The Netherlands. Data were collected by means of anonymous questionnaires sent to a random sample of 521 GPs from the province of North Holland, 521 GPs from the rest of the Netherlands, and all 713 NHPs who were members of the Dutch Association of Nursing Home Physicians. Data were collected over the period 1986-1989 (inclusive) for GPs and the period 1986-June 1990 (inclusive) for NHPs. Forty-eight percent of the Gps, 78% of the NHPs, and about half of the patients who opted for euthanasia did so because of the physical condition of the patient. The reason GPs, NHPs, and patients gave most often for opting for physician-assisted suicide was that they wanted 'as far as possible to let the patient bear the responsibility.' In 38% of all cases for GPs and 57% of all cases for NHPs, only active voluntary euthanasia could be performed because of the patient's condition. In the other cases, where there was a choice, most GPs performed euthanasia, while most NHPs assisted in suicide. Active voluntary euthanasia was chosen primarily for medico-technical reasons, whereas physician-assisted suicide was selected primarily for moral reasons.

Nine semistructured interviews with attendant questions were conducted with the purpose of elucidating how healthy individuals describe suffering and life values in their reflections upon active euthanasia. In order to find the intended meaning in utterances, the interviews were interpreted step by step. The point of departure was the following question: What expressions of suffering and what expressions of life values can be found in the text? A connection was found between the interviewees' descriptions of suffering and life values in their reflections upon active euthanasia. The interviewees who considered close relations to be a value of life expressed suffering as dependence, compassion, violation, abandonment and feelings of guilt, while those to whom health was a value of life expressed suffering as torment, dependence, physical pain, feebleness, hopelessness and dying. Those who saw autonomy as a value of life expressed suffering as dependence and violation and those to whom doing good was a value of life expressed suffering as compassion. When organizing health care and deciding about the response to suffering, it seems important to strive for a response built upon the individual patient's description of suffering and life values.

The article looks into the case involving Fabiano Antoniani, who, following a major road accident, was left tetraplegic. Marco Cappato drove him to a Swiss clinic where Mr. Antoniani took his own life by self-administration of lethal pentobarbital sodium. Cappato was put on trial, but the Italian Constitutional Court urged the Parliament to decriminalise assisted suicide in extremely serious cases. From a comparison with other European countries, approaches range from restrictive (banning both active euthanasia and assisted suicide), to entirely permissive. An intermediate approach only entails a ban on active euthanasia. It would be desirable to uniformise the diverse national statutes on a European level, which would make it possible for everyone to receive assistance towards ending their suffering, with limitations to incurable cases to be medically verified, and at the end of a path designed to ensure that patient freedom of choice is upheld at all time.

This survey study of 1,798 Swedish health care workers in 31 acute and chronic institutional settings found considerable disagreement between staff concerning euthanasia. For example, attitudes of aides and LPNs, were significantly (chi 2 = 42.0, P less than .0001) more favorable toward active euthanasia (38.9% of aides and 28.8% of LPNs were neutral or approved) than were RNs and physicians (20% and 14.9%). This disagreement was most apparent among those staff in institutions with many demented patients. Favorable attitudes were also more frequent among aides experiencing job dissatisfaction and "burnout," younger staff, and those without a relative in long-term care. Possible reasons for favorable attitudes toward active euthanasia and staff attitude polarization are discussed along with implications for patient care.