Euthanasia In Cambodia

Question by eldisher07: Do individuals have the right to choose suicide?
Do individuals have the right to choose suicide? The case of
Dignitas.

In the United States there were 31,655 suicides in 2002, which accounts for 11 suicides per
100,000 individuals, with the vast proportion of these (4,354) being males in the 25–44 yrs.
age cohort. The World Health Organisation (WHO) reported that rates have increased by 60
per cent worldwide and that suicide is now among the three leading causes of death within the
15–44 age cohort for both sexes. Just as Emile Durkheim discovered when completing his
study Suicide, such is the sensitivity surrounding the issue, particularly in countries where suicide
is completely proscribed, that the WHO report that statistics on suicide may, in fact, be
inaccurate.
In most societies throughout the world suicide is illegal. A quick web search will reveal many
websites devoted to the prevention of suicide. Suicide is a deeply emotive subject, yet does the
individual have the right to dispose of his or her body as he or she sees fit? The case for euthanasia is both provocative and topical and highlights conflicting arguments surrounding the issue of suicide. In the case of euthanasia, the issues are further complicated by the fact that many
terminally ill individuals need help in committing suicide. This leaves those who aid in the
voluntary suicide of another human being in a difficult legal situation. Should terminally ill
individuals be allowed to choose suicide and should their loved ones be legally permitted to
help them achieve their aim?
The Swiss-based charity Dignitas was founded in 1998 to aid sufferers of terminal illness to
commit suicide. Their slogan is ‘Live with dignity, die with dignity’. By December 2004 Dignitas had aided 146 individuals to ‘die with dignity’. More than two-thirds of these individuals were not Swiss nationals. Aiding the suicide of another human being is illegal in Switzerland, however, the ambiguous wording of the law, which states that anyone providing assistance or who ‘lures’ another individual to commit suicide ‘out of a self-interested motivation’, has provided something of a legal loophole for specialist volunteers of Dignitas. Volunteers do not administer the drug which ends the individual’s life. This is left to the individual concerned.
The organisation has provoked considerable unease amongst Swiss politicians, many of whom
argue that they are apprehensive regarding the motivations of any individuals who wish to aid
in the death of another human being, even if that death is a welcome one for the individual concerned.
Another reason for concern is that the Swiss authorities ‘do not want Switzerland to be
a destination for tourism for suicide’.
In November 2000 the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalise euthanasia.
Euthanasia had been tolerated by the Dutch authorities for decades but the change in statute
provoked considerable international unease. Despite strict medical and legal guidelines surrounding euthanasia, opponents argue that its legal sanction is open to abuse, not least because
a patient with a terminal illness may be particularly vulnerable and thus unable to be objective.
In addition, opponents argue that such is the high level of palliative care now on offer to terminally ill patients that no human being need suffer intolerable pain during a terminal illness (and oft-cited reason for the option for euthanasia).
Supporters of euthanasia argue that there is an apparent paradox with regard to euthanasia, in
that passive (voluntary) euthanasia, where medical treatment which aims to prolong life is
withheld, thus allowing the patient to die, is generally regarded as morally acceptable. In contrast
to this, active (voluntary) euthanasia, where the patient actively chooses to end his or her
life, is generally regarded as morally unacceptable. In April 2002, the question of the moral
acceptability of active (voluntary) euthanasia, as opposed to passive (voluntary) euthanasia,
was tested in the UK courts in the case of Diane Pretty. The European Court of Human Rights
ruled that Mrs Pretty, who was suffering from motor neurone disease, did not have the right to
choose when to end her life. Yet, in the week before the Pretty case, the same Court gave ‘Miss
B’ the right to request removal of the ventilator which was prolonging her life to be removed.
Mrs Pretty’s husband had requested legal sanction to aid his wife to commit active (voluntary)
euthanasia, a request which was denied by the Court.
Euthanasia is a topic which has provoked global interest, with religious groups in particular
voicing their fervent disapproval. Groups such as Liberty and the Voluntary Euthanasia Society
in the UK and the Euthanasia Society in the US, as well as other groups in New Zealand
and Western Australia are calling upon their respective governments for a change in the law. In
essence, suicide as an issue is one which provokes often polarised discussions and debate and,
as Durkheim discovered, it is an issue which is often shrouded in concealment.

Sources
www.samaritans.org.uk
The United States National Center for Health Statistics
BBC News, 20 January 2003

Discussion questions
1. Should terminally ill patients be given the legal right to end their lives by active (voluntary)
euthanasia?
2. How can suicide statistics help us to understand the structure and social problems of different
societies?
3. In what ways might euthanasia be open to abuse?

Best answer:

Answer by J.
Long questiong…. homework?

But suicide (as it is usually used) and euthanasia are slightly different; you shouldn’t help an non-terminally ill person committ suicide as they can recover. And suicide-risk people are usually watched. However, they are not punished for attempting suicide, so I guess they have the right but we try to prevent them exercising it? Euthanasia is a slightly different situation, though.

Give your answer to this question below!