8. Most patients do not go through the euthanasia process. Only a small group of people decide that ending their lives is the right decision. About 15% of people who receive a terminal diagnosis even have the idea of committing suicide through a deadly prescription. Patients who then talk to their doctor about this choice are about 2%. If you get to people who actually take the pills so they can enforce their local euthanasia laws, that number drops to less than 1%. I want to reflect on the sanctity of life from the middle position. It is the interpretation of the principle that recognizes that we have limited dominion over life. It is the interpretation that says that we are stewards of life, that we must care for, promote and improve life so that our lives can flourish and develop our potential.

It is the interpretation that seeks to respect life in all its forms and phases. Interpreting the sanctity of life in this way involves two obligations: a positive obligation – nurturing and sustaining life” and a negative commitment not to harm life. Therefore, the call to the sanctity of life in a discussion of euthanasia means creating a presumption in favor of life. Richard Gula So far, the focus has been on euthanasia through what I will call the paradigm of case-by-case analysis. My position is that euthanasia is not primarily an individual matter; It is a social issue. The discussion of euthanasia should therefore not be primarily determined by the ethics of individual cases, but by social ethics. At the end of the day, we can`t turn individual cases into public policy without something left. The common good resists temptation. How do an individual`s burdens compare to the burdens and benefits to society as a whole? I think it will all end up revolving around not the principles we are talking to, but the kind of people we are. Are we a virtuous people creating a community of care, or will we compromise in how we allow euthanasia to become a practice in our healing society? Gill adds that too little is known about how people make the decision to take deadly drugs after asking for the prescription. “We don`t follow these people and hear what they`re thinking day in and day out before taking the medication, and we don`t know what happens to people who express interest but end up not doing it,” she says. For most people, including people with disabilities and those facing end-of-life functional loss, social connection is what makes life worth living, she adds.

“A meaningful life does not necessarily mean that life should be pain-free or without physical impairment or functional limitations. What this means is staying humanly engaged and getting enough support from others or technology to get involved in the activities that matter, that give meaning to life. “Moreover, laws must serve the people; If the people of a country decide that they want a right to euthanasia, the government should not be able to deny them. For example, Oregon passed a law allowing assisted suicide by popular vote. This shows that citizens agree on the issue and want to make informed decisions about their end-of-life care. On the other side of the spectrum, Khaleeli and Cocozza`s (2017) article chronicles people`s problematic experiences in the UK, where euthanasia is not yet legal. In this case, the laws of the land actively prevent its citizens from making decisions and perpetuating their suffering. Therefore, laws surrounding end-of-life care and assisted suicide should reflect the wishes of the public. As medical assistance in dying becomes available in more and more places, research psychologists are finding ways to study people`s motivation and the potential benefits and harms of euthanasia.

Clinically, psychologists` skills are useful when people sort out their feelings and desires at the end of life, says Elizabeth Goy, PhD, a psychologist at Portland VA Medical Center and associate professor at Oregon Health and Science University and chair of the APA`s Task Force on End-of-Life Issues and Care. On the one hand, we need to ask ourselves what makes life-sustaining treatment unbeneficial or too burdensome when it can achieve its stated goal of saving lives. It can only be said that severely incompetent patients are unable to benefit from additional life-sustaining treatment or find it too burdensome if they are judged – on the whole – to be unable to benefit from the subsequent life itself. Thus, if the continuation of life-sustaining treatment is described as unnecessary or too burdensome, the physician must have already decided that the life of the incapacitated patient in question is not worth living and therefore not worth prolonging. For this reason, it is considered that stopping treatment is in the best interests of the patient and is compatible with the duty of care to protect that interest. Of course, any consistent advocate of active euthanasia and medical assistance in dying must take the problem of slippery slopes seriously and decide when a request for assisted dying is appropriate. While this may be difficult, it cannot be impossible. The most important question remains: where is the wrong thing in the face of so many moral rights? The principle of the sanctity of life is probably the common basic principle. There are two extreme positions that can give a bad name to the sanctity of life as a principle. One extreme is what I call vitalism, and it is the extreme that attempts to absolutize physical life by making biological existence an idol. This principle states that no cost is too high to maintain this biological life.

The other extreme interpretation leads to what I call a utilitarian perspective that values life for its utility. It is the interpretation that says that only the strongest and strongest should survive. The danger here is the abuse of under-treatments. This is not a slippery argument. The first medical malpractice lawsuit during the administration of euthanasia took place in 2018. When the Dutch passed their laws in 2002, there was no provision stating that the patient had to be capable at the time of administration of the drug.