Showing 12 results for Euthanasia
Naser Aghab Babaee,
Volume 4, Issue 2 (4-2011)
Abstract
Theologians describe the difference between active and passive euthanasia as in the former, we kill hopeless patients terribly suffering from an incurable disease and in the latter, and we let them die. The present research aimed at exploring for a solution to an ethical dilemma by which the difference between foundational concepts of the two types of euthanasia can be examined. Another objective of the study was to assess personal characteristics regarding this judgment. One hundred and five students were recruited, and in addition to reading the trolley problem and answering the related questions, they responded to a six-point scale self-assessment on morality and a short 20-point scale questionnaire on the five principle personality factors. Results showed that 83.8% of respondents found it immoral to kill one person in order to save 5 lives. Respondents' gender, religiousness and personality had no significant effect on their responses regarding the footbridge dilemma (P<0.05). Nonetheless, extroversion had an almost significant relationship (P=0.056, r=0.19). According to the results of the present study, the difference between "killing" and "letting die" is clear to most people, and they do not prefer killing even when there is more benefit than loss. Responses to the trolley problem were independent of personal characteristics, nonetheless, the quality of extroversion is suggested a as a potential determinant of agreement with active euthanasia.
Naser Aghababaei,
Volume 5, Issue 1 (12-2011)
Abstract
Euthanasia, to end easily the life of a terminally ill patient, is one of the most controversial ethical issues which there are not enough information about it in Iranian society. Valid and reliable instruments can facilitate research in this issue. The current study aimed at assessing the rate of acceptance of euthanasia in a group of college students, and studying validity and reliability of the Euthanasia Attitude Scale (EAS). Four hundred and thirty seven students judged about morality of euthanasia (by accepting euthanasia scale), and then completed the EAS. To analyze the data, indices of descriptive and inferential statistics including factor analysis and convergent validity were used. The results show that only 27.9 percent of the participants agree with euthanasia. There was a strong correlation between euthanasia acceptance and ethical considerations. Factor analysis of the EAS confirmed a three factor structure. Cronbach's alpha for the EAS was 0.88 and its correlation with euthanasia acceptance score was 0.54 which indicate internal consistency reliability and convergent validity of the EAS. According to these findings, most of the students are against euthanasia and their opposition to euthanasia mostly is due to Ethical Considerations within the domains of euthanasia attitude. Moreover, this study showed that the Persian version of the Euthanasia Attitude Scale is a valid instrument for assessing attitudes toward euthanasia.
Tahereh Moghadas, Maryam Momeni, Mojgan Baghaee, Shahram Ahmadi,
Volume 5, Issue 4 (7-2012)
Abstract
Nurses play an important role in end-of-life care for dying patients. Based on the essence of the work environment, nurses are confronted with dying patients and their requests for euthanasia more than other care givers. However, little is known about their attitudes towards euthanasia. Hence, aim of present study was to determine nurses' attitudes toward euthanasia. In this descriptive-analytical study, 91 nurses who employed in intensive care units situated in educational and medical hospitals affiliated to Guilan University of Medical Sciences participated. Nurses attitudes evaluated by using Euthanasia Attitude Scale. Data analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics (T-test, ANOVA and generalized linear models) by SPSS software version 16. Majority of nurses (83.5%) had negative attitude toward euthanasia. Univariate analysis showed no significant statistical relationship between demographic factors and nurses' attitude toward euthanasia, whilst age (P < 0.029) and employment status (P < 0.004) were related to nurses' attitude toward euthanasia in regression analysis.
Findings of the present study showed that majority of nurse's believe in care of dying patients for health maintenance and life continuance even in the end stage of life. They don't accept euthanasia at any condition. Perhaps, more accurate studies need to assess other confounding factors such as nurses' knowledge, practice and role.
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.
Behzad Joodaki, Mohsen Sadeghi, Keivan Ghani, Mohamad Mirzaie,
Volume 9, Issue 4 (10-2016)
Abstract
Physician-assisted suicide is an important, challenging issue in medical ethics, which the right to die is a central point in this issue. Physician-assisted suicide is offered to end intolerable pain and suffering. Although, it is a legal practice in some countries, still it is a challenging and controversial practice in ethical and legal perspectives. It has been argued that based on the principles of medical ethics, physicians should respect patient’s decision, however many ethicists and jurists believe that Physician-assisted suicide is unethical. It should be noted that the main reason for proponents and opponents is based on their interpretation about human dignity. This controversy can be resolved by reference to religious interpretation of human dignity in which asserts that Physician-assisted suicide is against human dignity and respect for human life.
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.
Seyyed Abdol Rahim Hosseini, Davoud Zareian,
Volume 13, Issue 0 (3-2020)
Abstract
Perhaps, the most appropriate translation proposed for euthanasia is the painless and piteous killing. According to the existence of effective components in committing a crime, it is considered as complicity in murder and the consent of victim does not affect the nature of criminal act and the criminal liability of person depriving the life. One of issues related to this killing which is disagreed is the edict that person who is obliged to save life related to passive type of euthanasia does not perform this killing and there must be difference among its different types and conditions. The primary reasoning of the edicts indicate that duties whether difficulty or not must be done but, according to the rule of negation of difficulty and hardship, obligation to these edicts in cases of hardship is cancelled. The articles of this rule include obligatory duties to disuse. However, from the view of jurists, it is not general that euthanasia corresponds to some juridical sub-principles indicating the permission of suicide in some conditions, although this is criticized and rejected. Two rules of hardship and beneficence are those believed to help prove the hypothesis by attaching to the rule of negation of hardship and difficulty. But, it is clear that it is not so. In feasibility study of this rule with the rule of no harm, they are proved by the murder illegality and the mentioned rules cannot govern the primary reasoning of depriving the life Therefore, euthanasia is not allowed at all.
Leila Razeghian Jahromi, Safoura Sadeghi Mazidi, Ali Farhangdoost,
Volume 15, Issue 1 (3-2022)
Abstract
An increase in the incidence of chronic and incurable diseases and the lack of facilities to care for patients raises the issue of prioritization in the allocation of facilities and the selection of patients to use the facilities and the choice between life and death. Discussion of termination of life and cessation of treatment is one of the challenges in the field of medicine and ethics. The demand for euthanasia has increased in recent years, and future physicians will face this issue. This cross-sectional study was performed on 200 interns and medical residents in 1400. All participants completed the Demographic Information Questionnaire, Beck Depression Questionnaire, and Attitude to Euthanasia Questionnaire. In the present study, 67.5% of participants agreed with euthanasia. The mean score of attitudes to euthanasia was higher in men than women (P = 0.023) and higher in single people (P = 0.045). As religious beliefs increased in individuals, the mean score of attitudes toward euthanasia decreased and opposition to it increased (P> 0.001). Positive attitudes toward euthanasia were associated with depression and its severity (P> 0.001). Depression and its severity are significantly associated with more physicians' desire for euthanasia. On the other hand, the stronger the religious beliefs, the greater the anti-euthanasia. Support for euthanasia in men and single people was also higher than in other groups.
Shabnam Rasoulpoor, Reza Nematollahi Maleki, Neda Tagizadeh,
Volume 17, Issue 0 (12-2024)
Abstract
Euthanasia, defined as the intentional ending of a patient's life to relieve intractable suffering, presents complex ethical, legal, and emotional challenges for healthcare professionals, particularly nurses. Nurses play a pivotal role in end-of-life care, making their attitudes toward euthanasia crucial for understanding its implications in clinical practice. This review aims to synthesize existing literature on nurses' attitudes about euthanasia to identify key influencing factors and areas requiring further exploration. This study was conducted using the PRISMA 2020 guideline with no time limitation (by December 2024). Eligible articles were selected following a search in various databases (Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Embase, and Google Scholar) using keywords and operators of “AND” & “OR.” The search strategy included “Perceptions” OR “Attitudes” OR “Nurse” AND “Euthanasia.” Data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers (SR and NT). Studies were evaluated with the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS Tool). A total of 21 studies were included in the review. The review revealed that nurses’ attitudes toward euthanasia vary widely depending on legal frameworks, cultural norms, religious beliefs, and personal values. In countries where euthanasia is legalized, such as Belgium and the Netherlands, nurses often report greater acceptance and willingness to participate in the process, emphasizing their role in ensuring patient autonomy and dignity. Conversely, in regions where euthanasia is illegal, nurses frequently express ethical concerns, moral distress, and reluctance to support the practice. Common themes include the need for clear guidelines, ethical training, and emotional support systems for nurses dealing with euthanasia-related situations. Nurses’ attitudes about euthanasia are influenced by a complex interplay of cultural, legal, and personal factors. While some nurses view euthanasia as an extension of compassionate care, others experience ethical dilemmas and professional conflict. This highlights the need for robust ethical frameworks, specialized training, and supportive resources to help nurses navigate the challenges associated with euthanasia in their practice.
Maryam Ghaffari, Reza Shabanloei, Mozhgan Behshid,
Volume 17, Issue 0 (12-2024)
Abstract
Euthanasia, often referred to as mercy killing or an "easy death," remains a deeply controversial issue, particularly in Islamic countries where it is both ethically and legally prohibited. Nurses working in intensive care units (ICUs) are more likely than other healthcare professionals to encounter situations related to end-of-life care, given the critical condition of the patients they serve. Consequently, their attitudes toward euthanasia hold significant ethical and professional implications. This descriptive-analytical study was conducted to explore the attitudes of ICU nurses toward euthanasia in a context where it is culturally and legally forbidden. A total of 194 nurses from eight hospitals affiliated with Tabriz University of Medical Sciences participated. Data collection instruments included a demographic questionnaire and Holloway’s Attitudes Toward Euthanasia Scale. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, and ANOVA. The mean attitude score towards euthanasia was 71.95 ± 4.99 out of a possible 120. Overall, 74% of participants scored below 75, reflecting a generally negative attitude toward euthanasia, while 26% scored above 75, indicating a more favorable view. No statistically significant association was found between attitudes toward euthanasia and any demographic variables (p ≥ 0.05). Despite the legal and religious restrictions against euthanasia in Iran, a portion of ICU nurses demonstrated a positive attitude toward the practice. Given the potential impact of these attitudes on patient care, nursing managers and educational authorities should address even minimal levels of support for euthanasia. Targeted training and ethical guidance are essential to ensure that patient care remains aligned with legal and moral standards, particularly in ethically sensitive clinical situations.
