Showing 4 results for Active Euthanasia
Gholamhossein Tavakoli,
Volume 5, Issue 7 (2-2013)
Abstract
Euthanasia has been the subject of much controversy during the last three decades. In ethics most philosophers divide it into active and passive euthanasia and consider the first option to be immoral. There are some thinkers, however, who deny any moral significance in such a distinction. Among them and perhaps the first in this arena is James Rachels who is followed by other thinkers like Jonathan Bennett and Michael Tooley. Rachels poses his equivalence theory. By this he means that assuming the stability of other factors in a given circumstance and focusing on the variable of act and omission alone we would find that there is no moral difference between the two. He tries to defend his theory by the way of parallel examples and parity of reasons. We are going to evaluate his arguments by explaining and then criticizing them. In this regard we will examine briefly some counter-examples, and then we will have a look at some answers of other philosophers like Philippa Foot and Will Cartwright. We try to assess these refutations and finally we are going to offer two answers in the hope that these answers solve the problem.
Mansureh Madani,
Volume 6, Issue 2 (5-2013)
Abstract
When medical treatment is futile, the physicians must refrain from treating patients, and this can lead to serious and stressful problems. In this paper, in order to facilitate ethical decision making relevant literatures have been reviewed. This review article aimed to explaining the different clinical forms of futile treatment, and exploring theoretical and practical dimensions of futility. The first problem in this field is ambiguity in the definition of futility. The next problem is determining the practical criteria and attributing the meaning of futility to particular treatments. This ambiguity is partly due to different perspectives about the goal of treatment, and variations in physicians' and patients’ values and also disagreements regarding the person who should have the right to make decisions ultimately. It may also be related to finances and immoral motives. The third problem is some practical conflicts the most notable are futile care, requested by the patient and the sanctity of life, especially in the concern of religious considerations. In this regard, several definitions have been proposed for the futile treatment. Studies indicate that requesting futile care is often due to emotional problems or lack of trust a case that requires the physician’s tact to resolve and rarely is resolved by rule. Another serious problem that is regarding to end of life cares, especially in the context of religious views, is the necessity of life saving, that is closely related to the inactive euthanasia. This can be solved by giving priority to more important issues such as health budget constraints.
Ensieh Salimi, Mohammad Javad Fathi,
Volume 6, Issue 4 (10-2013)
Abstract
Euthanasia or mercy killing is a new and challenging topic in medical law. This article examines all types of euthanasia based on the Islamic criminal code of 2011, and demonstrates that active and involuntary euthanasia is murder if conditions exist the basis for active and voluntary euthanasia, however, is the victim’s consent, so the penalty is less. As the physical element of inactive euthanasia is omission, clause 296 of the criminal code and clause 2 of the penal code on refusing to help the wounded apply. Lastly, it is suggested that legislators criminalize euthanasia with a new approach and independent title, and consider principles of justice to determine less punishment for this type of killing compared to murder with malice aforethought.
Aria Hejazi, Alireza Moshirahmadi, Golnaz Sabetian, Nazila Badieeyian Mousavi ,
Volume 9, Issue 5 (1-2017)
Abstract
Euthanasia is still a controversial issue worldwide. There are different and sometimes contradictory opinions about euthanasia and its practice. By exchange of ideas and opinions about this issue, some countries have explicitly accepted euthanasia and it has been legalized. Whereas, some other countries distinctly rejected euthanasia and in result it has been criminalized. Among countries there is a third group, with a passive or neutral position. In those countries, like Iran, the acceptance or rejection of euthanasia has been discussed among the law experts but there is no legislation to address the issue. This article aims to evaluate euthanasia based on the Article 372 of Iran's Islamic penal code.
