The Experts below are selected from a list of 36 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Raphael Cohenalmagor - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
non voluntary and Involuntary Euthanasia in the netherlands dutch perspectives
Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 2003Co-Authors: Raphael CohenalmagorAbstract:During the summer of 1999, twenty-eight interviews with some of the leading authorities on the Euthanasia policy were conducted in the Netherlands. They were asked about cases of non-voluntary (when patients are incompetent) and Involuntary Euthanasia (when patients are competent and made no request to die). This study reports the main findings, showing that most respondents are quite complacent with regard to breaches of the guideline that speaks of the patient's consent as prerequisite to performance of Euthanasia.
-
non voluntary and Involuntary Euthanasia in the netherlands dutch perspectives
Issues in Law & Medicine, 2003Co-Authors: Raphael CohenalmagorAbstract:Abstract: During the summer of 1999, twenty-eight interviews with some of the leading authorities on Euthanasia policy were conducted in the Netherlands. They were asked about cases of non-voluntary (when patients are incompetent) and Involuntary Euthanasia (when patients are competent and made no request to die). This study reports the main findings, showing that most respondents are quite complacent with regard to breaches of the guideline that require the patient's consent as a prerequisite to performance of Euthanasia. ********** In November 1990, the Dutch Ministry of Justice and the Royal Dutch Medical Association set out Guidelines for the performance of Euthanasia based on the criteria established in court decisions relating to the conditions under which a doctor can successfully invoke the defense of necessity. The substantive requirements are as follows: 1. The request for Euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide must be made by the patient and must be free and voluntary 2. The patient's request must be well considered, durable and consistent. The patient's situation must entail unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement and no alternative to end the suffering. (1) The patient need not be terminally ill to satisfy this requirement and the suffering need not necessarily be physical. 3. Euthanasia must be a last resort. (2) The procedural requirements are as follows: * No doctor is required to perform Euthanasia, but those opposed on principle must make this position known to the patient early on and help the patient to get in touch with a colleague who has no such moral objections. * Doctors taking part in Euthanasia should preferably and whenever possible have patients administer the fatal drug themselves, rather than have a doctor apply an injection or intravenous drip. (3) * A doctor must perform the Euthanasia. * Before the doctor assists the patient, the doctor must consult a second independent doctor who has no professional or family relationship with either the patient or doctor. Since the 1991 Chabot case, (4) patients with a psychiatric disorder must be examined by at least two other doctors, one of whom must be a psychiatrist. * The doctor must keep a full written record of the case. * The death must be reported to the prosecutorial authorities as a case of Euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, and not as a case of death by natural causes. (5) In 1990, the Dutch government appointed a commission to investigate the medical practice of Euthanasia. The Commission, headed by Professor Jan Remmelink, Solicitor General to the Supreme Court, was asked to conduct a comprehensive nation-wide study of "medical decisions concerning the end of life (MDEL)." The following broad forms of MDEL were studied: * Non-treatment decisions: withholding or withdrawing treatment in situations where treatment would probably have prolonged life; * Alleviation of pain and symptoms: administering opioids in such dosages that the patient's life could be shortened; * Euthanasia and related MDEL: the prescription, supply or administration of drugs with the explicit intention of shortening life, including Euthanasia at the patient's request, assisted suicide, and life termination without explicit and persistent request. (6) The study was repeated in 1995, making it possible to assess for the first time whether there were harmful effects over time that might have been caused by the availability of voluntary Euthanasia in the Netherlands. It is still difficult to make valid comparisons with other countries because of legal and cultural differences, and also because similar comprehensive studies are quite rare. (7) The two Dutch studies were said to give the best estimate of all forms of MDEL (i.e., all treatment decisions with the possibility of shortening life) in the Netherlands as approximately 39% of all deaths in 1990, and 43% in 1995. …
Fotios Chatzinikolaou - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Involuntary Euthanasia of severely ill newborns is the groningen protocol really dangerous
Hippokratia, 2014Co-Authors: Polychronis Voultsos, Fotios ChatzinikolaouAbstract:Advances in medicine can reduce active Euthanasia of newborns with severe anomalies or unusual prematurity, but they cannot eliminate it. In the Netherlands, voluntary active Euthanasia among adults and adolescents has been allowed since 2002, when the so-called Groningen Protocol (GP) was formulated as an extension of the law on extremely premature and severely ill newborns. It is maintained that, at bioethical level, it serves the principle of beneficence. Other European countries do not accept the GP, including Belgium. Admissibility of active Euthanasia is a necessary, though inadequate, condition for acceptance of the GP. Greece generally prohibits Euthanasia, although the legal doctrine considers some of the forms of Euthanasia permissible, but not active or Involuntary Euthanasia. The wide acceptance of passive newborns Euthanasia, especially when the gestational age of the newborns is 22-25 weeks ("grey zone"), admissibility of practices within the limits between active and passive Euthanasia (e.g., withholding/withdrawing), of "indirect active Euthanasia" and abortion of the late fetus, the tendency to accept after-birth-abortion (infanticide) in the bioethical theory, the lower threshold for application of withdrawing in neonatal intensive care units compared with pediatric intensive care units, all the above advocate wider acceptance of the GP. However, the GP paves the way for a wide application of Involuntary (or pseudo-voluntary) Euthanasia (slippery slope) and contains some ambiguous concepts and requirements (e.g., "unbearable suffering"). It is suggested that the approach to the sensitive and controversial ethical dilemmas concerning the severely ill newborns is done not through the GP, but rather, through a combination of virtue bioethics (especially in the countries of the so-called "Mediterranean bioethical zone") and of the principles of principlism which is enriched, however, with the "principle of mutuality" (enhancement of all values and principles, especially with the principles of "beneficence" and "justice"), in order to achieve the "maximal" bioethical approach, along with the establishment of circumstances and alternatives that minimize or eliminate the relevant bioethical dilemmas and conflicts between the fundamental principles. Thus, the most appropriate/fairest choices are made (by trained parents and physicians), considering all interests involved as much as possible. Hippokratia 2014; 18 (3): 196-203.
Polychronis Voultsos - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Involuntary Euthanasia of severely ill newborns is the groningen protocol really dangerous
Hippokratia, 2014Co-Authors: Polychronis Voultsos, Fotios ChatzinikolaouAbstract:Advances in medicine can reduce active Euthanasia of newborns with severe anomalies or unusual prematurity, but they cannot eliminate it. In the Netherlands, voluntary active Euthanasia among adults and adolescents has been allowed since 2002, when the so-called Groningen Protocol (GP) was formulated as an extension of the law on extremely premature and severely ill newborns. It is maintained that, at bioethical level, it serves the principle of beneficence. Other European countries do not accept the GP, including Belgium. Admissibility of active Euthanasia is a necessary, though inadequate, condition for acceptance of the GP. Greece generally prohibits Euthanasia, although the legal doctrine considers some of the forms of Euthanasia permissible, but not active or Involuntary Euthanasia. The wide acceptance of passive newborns Euthanasia, especially when the gestational age of the newborns is 22-25 weeks ("grey zone"), admissibility of practices within the limits between active and passive Euthanasia (e.g., withholding/withdrawing), of "indirect active Euthanasia" and abortion of the late fetus, the tendency to accept after-birth-abortion (infanticide) in the bioethical theory, the lower threshold for application of withdrawing in neonatal intensive care units compared with pediatric intensive care units, all the above advocate wider acceptance of the GP. However, the GP paves the way for a wide application of Involuntary (or pseudo-voluntary) Euthanasia (slippery slope) and contains some ambiguous concepts and requirements (e.g., "unbearable suffering"). It is suggested that the approach to the sensitive and controversial ethical dilemmas concerning the severely ill newborns is done not through the GP, but rather, through a combination of virtue bioethics (especially in the countries of the so-called "Mediterranean bioethical zone") and of the principles of principlism which is enriched, however, with the "principle of mutuality" (enhancement of all values and principles, especially with the principles of "beneficence" and "justice"), in order to achieve the "maximal" bioethical approach, along with the establishment of circumstances and alternatives that minimize or eliminate the relevant bioethical dilemmas and conflicts between the fundamental principles. Thus, the most appropriate/fairest choices are made (by trained parents and physicians), considering all interests involved as much as possible. Hippokratia 2014; 18 (3): 196-203.
Ron Panzer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
eyewitness testimony of Involuntary Euthanasia
2017Co-Authors: Ron PanzerAbstract:According to Barbara, the medications used in the ICU to end her father's life were strong doses of morphine and Haldol, which are very commonly used in hospice (though not appropriately for all patients). Her father was perfectly lucid, able to clearly communicate that he was refusing those medications, and did not want them. Nevertheless, Barbara reports they were given, and her father died shortly afterwards.
Rika Maghfiroh - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
tinjauan hukum islam terhadap hak kewarisan pada ahli waris yang melakukan Involuntary Euthanasia terhadap muwarisnya
2016Co-Authors: Rika MaghfirohAbstract:Euthanasia, yaitu suatu kematian yang terjadi dengan pertolongan atau tidak dengan pertolongan dokter. Berdasarkan permintaan Euthanasia dibagi menjadi dua macam : pertama, Voluntary Euthanasia (atas permintaan pasien). Kedua, Involuntary Euthanasia (atas permintaan keluarga). Dalam penelitian ini yang menjadi permasalahannya ialah dalam kasus Involuntary Euthanasia, yang mana hak waris pemohon yang sekaligus menjadi ahli waris dalam melakukan tindak Euthanasia kepada muwarisnya. Sebagai al-Ashlu dengan menetapkan ‘illat yang terkandung di dalamnya yaitu menghilangkan nyawa (adanya motif pembunuhan). Adapun hukum asal yang terdapat dalam hadits tersebut adalah haram hukumnya bagi pembunuh mewarisi dari orang yang dibunuhnya dan al- far’u adalah Involuntary Euthanasia . Dengan menggunakan jenis penelitian kepustakaan, metode kualitatif dengan fokus kajian yuridis normatif, Teknik pengumpulan data dengan cara dokumentasi serta melakukan analisis data dengan cara deskriptif deduktif, Berdasarkan metode penelitian tersebut, maka diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa Tindakan Euthanasia secara pasif yang dilakukan oleh dokter dalam kondisi sudah tidak ada harapan untuk disembuhkan lagi, hukumnya adalah jaiz (boleh) dan dibenarkan syari’ah apabila keluarga pasien mengizinkan demi meringankan penderitaan dan beban pasien dan keluarganya. Dengan catatan bahwa pencabutan tindakan medis tersebut dikarenakan pasien tersebut telah dianggap mati menurut medis dan syara’. Sedangkan untuk status hukum hak waris bagi pemohon Euthanasia pasif atau Involuntary Euthanasia adalah tindakan ini bukanlah termasuk dalam kategori tindakan pembunuhan, akan tetapi hannya sebatas menghentikan pengobatan maupun tindakan medis lainnya dikarenakan dianggap sudah tidak ada gunanya lagi melanjutkan pengobatan sebab pasien tidak responsif lagi. Berdasarkan hal tersebut, tindakan infoluntary Euthanasia secara pasif, ini bukanlah tindakan yang bisa dikatakan sebagai penghalang untuk mendapatkan hak waris. Kata Kunci: Involuntary Euthanasia, ahli waris, status hak waris
