Additionally, the procedure, if widely available, would lessen the urgency to make available new medicines designed to extend life. Those who are against the procedure on religious grounds contend that it is ‘playing God’ consequently sinful. Health care professionals refer to the Hippocratic Oath which prohibits them from performing this procedure. This discussion will examine the moral and legal concerns surrounding euthanasia, explain the meaning of the term, give arguments for the practice and end with a recommendation to solve the issue.
Euthanasia describes a circumstance in which an incurably ill patient is given a mortal dose of medication, is detached from a life-support system or is basically allowed to die without active involvement for example by resuscitation. A physician’s involvement in the procedure could be to either intravenously insert a needle into the terminal patient who themselves activate a switch that delivers the fatal dose or to order a lethal dose of drugs with the express intention of ending a life. (Naji et al, 2005). Euthanasia by doctors as well as non-physicians has been lawful in Switzerland since WWII. Additionally, three organizations within the nation have been formed to help terminally ill patients. They supply patient counseling in addition to the medications for use in the procedure. Lethal injections, however, are not permissible. The atypical situation in Switzerland holds that euthanasia is allowed as long as a doctor is not involved in the process (Hurst & Mauron, 2003). Euthanasia has been legally permissible in Belgium since 2002. Each circumstance must be reviewed by two doctors prior to the procedure being performed by either injection or ingestion. In The Netherlands, euthanasia has been legal for seven years but has been tolerated for a quarter century. The directive for physicians stipulated by the government include; “the