If VE were legalized when the dominant standards of palliative care were as uneven and unpredictable as they are today, it would be inevitable that some lives would be taken due to the physician`s medical ignorance, even if effective treatment would be available. The conclusion is inevitable that such a situation is the probable cause of at least some of the currently known cases of illegal euthanasia, and this would not change even if the law were amended without a complete correction of the current medical deficiencies in palliative care training and practice. Voluntary active euthanasia, called “medical assistance in dying,” is legal in Canada for anyone over the age of 18 with an incurable disease that has progressed to the point where natural death is “reasonably foreseeable.” To prevent suicidal tourism, only people who are eligible for Canadian health insurance are allowed to use it. The legalization of the practice took place in 2015-2016 following a series of Supreme Court decisions that struck down the ban on physician-assisted suicide in Canada. Here is a timeline of events: Active euthanasia is illegal in the United States. Patients retain the right to refuse medical treatment and, if they wish, to receive appropriate pain management (passive euthanasia), even if patients` decisions accelerate their death. In addition, senseless or disproportionately burdensome treatments, such as: Life support devices, under certain circumstances and under federal and most state laws, may only be withdrawn with the informed consent of the patient or, in the case of the patient`s incapacity, with the informed consent of the legal surrogate. The U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed “quality of life issues” or “futility” and appears to tolerate only active or passive (not defined by law) “euthanasia” when there is clear and convincing evidence that informed consent to euthanasia, passive or active, was obtained from the competent patient or legal surrogate mother of the incapable patient. [ref. needed] There would be other long-term consequences of legalizing euthanasia that we cannot yet imagine.

However, we can be sure that these consequences would be detrimental, because they would come from a nobly motivated, but fundamentally wrong initiative – trying to solve people`s problems by killing. Other countries in the region have developed similar euthanasia laws, but the laws have not been approved, such as in El Salvador and Venezuela. Ostropolsky, an experienced lawyer, filters everything through law and jurisprudence – this is his way of facing the abyss. On May 30, he wrote a lengthy statement on his Facebook account to draw the attention of Argentine lawmakers and the international community to the urgent need to pass a euthanasia law in his country. Active euthanasia is illegal in the UK. Anyone who assists suicide violates the law and can be found guilty of aiding and abetting suicide or attempted suicide. [106] [107] [108] Between 2003 and 2006, Lord Joffe made four attempts to introduce bills legalizing voluntary euthanasia – all of which were rejected by the British Parliament. [109] Currently, Dr. Nigel Cox is the only British physician convicted of attempted euthanasia. In 1992, he was given a 12-month suspended sentence. [110] VE is sometimes described as an expression of a claim to privacy, as if it were only an important matter between the patient and the physician.

If a doctor accepted euthanasia, it could only happen because he had concluded that this life had lost enough value – no one would destroy a life he cherished. But if a doctor felt comfortable with the idea that it was acceptable for him to attach little value to the lives of some patients, it could be fateful for other of his patients who were in a similar condition but had not asked for death. He would have the right to interpret positively any discussion of euthanasia and ignore the evidence that many of these discussions are initiated by patients in desperate need to have their lives confirmed and not rejected. It is well known that today`s medical systems are increasingly depersonalizing patients. There are no criteria for determining undue influence on another person, and doctors are no better able to do so than others. When the Canadian Law Reform Commission considered euthanasia in 1982, it noted that coercion was “a pervasive possibility” (7). The House of Lords report states: “It would be almost impossible to guarantee that all acts of euthanasia are truly voluntary and that any liberalization of laws is not abused.” Coercion, especially if subtle, would be very difficult to detect with certainty and would be impossible if obfuscation was truly desired. Presenting euthanasia only as a private matter is dangerously naïve and ignores the fact that the euthanasia law would set new and less stringent standards of respect for human life, because in the eyes of many, legalizing a case means that it has the approval of authority. VE would then become one of the options that could be made available to all vulnerable sick patients and should be promoted and encouraged. Given the glaring imbalance of power between physicians and their patients, some patients would then be influenced powerfully and unfairly. This would place an unnecessary burden on dying patients when they may already be seriously burdened and confused by so many aspects of their illness.

Mutual consent. Voluntary euthanasia means that one person asks and another agrees to kill life. Although consent in criminal law is not a defence to a violation of either of its provisions, both parties would have violated this principle in lawful euthanasia. “I have it at home and I gave it to my family. These things need to be discussed in advance to avoid controversy and suffering. If you record it in writing, no discussion is possible. But there are people who can`t make that request, which is terrible. That`s why we need a law on euthanasia,” he said. “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. Passive euthanasia is legal, through preliminary rulings that give patients the right to refuse life-saving treatments. [112] Food and liquids may also be deprived of a person in a vegetative state without the need for court approval. [113] 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. Passive euthanasia is legal in India. [54] On March 7, 2018, India`s Supreme Court legalized passive euthanasia by depriving patients in a persistent vegetative state of life-sustaining care. [55] [56] Forms of active euthanasia, including the administration of lethal compounds, are illegal.

[57] While active euthanasia is illegal throughout the United States, assisted suicide is illegal in Colorado, Oregon, Hawaii, Washington, Vermont, Maine,[114] New Jersey,[4] California,[115] the District of Columbia,[6] a county in New Mexico, and de facto legal in Montana. [116] [117] In addition, the Louisiana Bill of Rights explicitly prohibits euthanasia as cruel and unusual punishment. [ref. needed] Euthanasia is illegal in the Philippines.