physical or mental pain without prospect of relief” and have “provided a medical practitioner, while appearing to be lucid, with two written requests more than 10 days apart expressly stating the person’s free and informed consent to opt to die”. Organizations opposed to the idea of euthanasia aver that the contentions were weak and insufficient. In particular the phrase: “appearing to be lucid” is subject to scrutiny and subjective assessment of its veracity.
Euthanasia has been specifically defined as “the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. The key word here is "intentional". If death is not intended, it is not an act of euthanasia.” (Euthanasia.com 1) The problem has been a source of controversial debate since people from diverse parts of the world hold various beliefs and values that run counter to the objective of euthanasia. Killing, has been viewed, as a criminal act and whatever purpose it deems to be achieved, it is still regarded as contrary to human law.
Organizations and states which supported and legalized euthanasia have done so on the grounds that patients who are in pain and suffering without any recourse for recovery should be accorded with the right to die with dignity. The issue therefore continues to be debated upon with an impending bill seeking amendment to the Criminal Code to permit the “right to die with dignity”.
The author concluded the article through inferring that despite identification of particular circumstances allowing euthanasia, it still could be subject to loopholes. Collier (2009, 464) specifically emphasized that the phrase “appearing to be lucid” is easily contestable given the state of physical and mental condition of the patients. In this regard, he is most likely arguing against euthanasia as a way to end a patient’s misery and pain.
The author identified what the particular circumstances are in considering medical practitioners