Thesis advisor: Marc Landy / The “Death with Dignity Act,” if passed in November 2012 in Massachusetts by means of a ballot initiative, would have allowed doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to patients with fewer than six months to live. Introduced by two pro-assisted suicide organizations from the Pacific Northwest, the initiative was expected to take advantage of a political “perfect storm” brewing in the Bay State. A blue state in a presidential election year, with President Obama at the top of the Democratic ticket, Massachusetts was expected to produce an electoral outcome favorable to assisted suicide. Oregon and Washington State had legalized physician-assisted suicide in 1998 and 2008, respectively. Polling in 2011 showed a 2-1 majority among Massachusetts voters in favor of assisted suicide. Nonetheless, the Archbishop of Boston and the Bishops of Worcester, Fall River and Springfield, organized as the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, took up the challenge to oppose the initiative. Relying on the expertise of paid political consultants, they mounted a two-tiered campaign. An internal component, directed at Catholics, included the dissemination of over 2 million pieces of in-print and electronic materials urging a “no” vote on the measure. An external component, directed at the wider public, relied on a coalition of organizations representing the three major religions, health and hospice organizations, disabilities rights activists, and pharmacists. Using “flaws” in the bill identified through strategic polling, they appealed to voters even sympathetic to assisted suicide to reject the bill. When the votes were counted 2.7 million Massachusetts citizens voted on the physician-assisted suicide initiative and it was defeated by 67,891 votes, 51.1% to 48.9%. One key to the defeat was the split in the vote in the city of Boston, where Question 2 was defeated 50.9% to 49.1% . Twelve of Boston’s 22 wards voted against the measure. Leading the way among the twelve were Dorchester, Roxbury, and Hyde Park, traditionally black, liberal Democratic strongholds. This study shows that even the most effective, well-funded, Church-initiated campaign in Massachusetts in 2012 might well have foundered on the 2-1 majority in favor of assisted suicide at the polls, not for the strategic identification of “flaws in the bill,” the broad-based coalition campaign based on them, and the “split in the vote in the black community in Boston.” . / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2021. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Political Science.

Extensive research has been conducted on the attitudes of physicians and nurses toward euthanasia. However, little is known on the attitudes of suicide prevention workers (SPWs). The objectives of this study were to: (1) examine the attitudes of SPWs toward euthanasia for a non-descript person versus for a loved one; (2) verify the association between personal factors (experiences, sociodemographics) and attitudes, and (3) explore personal experiences of SPWs in relation to grievous illness. A survey was sent out to all suicide prevention centres across Quebec (n=32). A majority of SPWs (55.7%) held positive attitudes toward euthanasia for a non-descript person and for a loved one (49.5%). Statistically significant differences were found in attitudes among SPWs who had personal and professional experiences. There were no other statistically significant differences in the attitudes of SPWs toward euthanasia for a non-descript person or for a loved one, and any of the sociodemographic factors. Three themes emerged from the qualitative analysis of open-ended question on personal experiences of SPWs: respect of choice, suffering/low quality of life and palliative care. While some findings may be concluded from this study, it is essential that this topic be explored further as research on SPWs’ attitudes on euthanasia is limited. Research outcomes of this study can have important short-term and long-term implications on suicide prevention and training of SPWs to improve services offered to clients.

No description available.

This dissertation will examine the legality of assisted dying procedures performed in the Republic of South Africa. This is due to the rising awareness about terminal patients’ dignity and autonomy at the end of their life. The physician’s liability, who assists such a patient to end their life, will be examined and whether there is any legal recourse available will be explored. Comparisons will also be made between other legal systems, including Canada, the Netherlands, Oregon of the United States of America and England and Wales. These jurisdictions have been chosen to provide a wide variety of perspectives and possible alternatives that South Africa should take into consideration should parliament or the courts decide to argue the matter. Other sources are also considered, such as the influence of the history and development of the common law crime of murder, as well as the role the Health Professions Council of South Africa will play. Possibly most importantly, the material criminal law of South Africa is thoroughly studied with all forms of assisted dying in mind. This is to establish what kind of liability, criminal or otherwise, a physician might incur should they decide to assist a patient in these circumstances. Lastly, recommendations are made based on the research done throughout this dissertation, which would ideally assist in any future arguments made on the topic. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2017. / Public Law / LLM / Unrestricted

This research investigated the role religion plays in how individuals view euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. One hundred participants from each of the three major monotheistic world religions were given a seven-question survey. The seven questions consisted of statements regarding the knowledge of their own religion, how the participants feel about terminally ill patients and those who have lost vital functions, and also whether or not they believe euthanasia is morally just. It was predicted that the participants who belong to Judaism and Islam viewed euthanasia as morally just and participants who belong to the Christianity viewed euthanasia as morally incorrect.

Introduction: Physician assisted suicide (PAS) is the process where the patient terminateshis/her life with the aid of a physician who provides a prescription for lethal medication thatthe patient self-administers in order to commit suicide. PAS is practiced in several countriesand is now gaining support in Sweden. The debate shows some confusion regarding thedefinition of concepts and raises several ethical concerns. Aim: To provide an empirical background and clarify concepts. To analyze the ethical arguments for and against PAS. To investigate relevant ethical differences between PAS, euthanasia and withdrawal oflife-sustaining treatment. Materials and methods: Qualitative literature study based on argumentative- and conceptualanalysis on hermeneutic ground. Materials were gathered through a literature search andconsist of scientific articles, debate articles and official materials. Results: The main ethical arguments supporting PAS are autonomy, beneficence and dignity.PAS is by supporters seen as an act of compassion, which fulfills the physician’s obligation ofnon-abandonment. Opponents emphasize that PAS goes against the duty of beneficence andnonmaleficence and fear that there may be a slippery slope where more and more people willdemand PAS. Conclusion: There is no consensus on whether PAS is considered ethically defendable or not.PAS appears to involve a conflict of interest between the principles of beneficence andautonomy. There seems to be some factual disagreements as well as different positions as tohow the ethical principles should be interpreted, and which ethical principle should be valuedthe highest.

<p>There is no stronger or more enduring prohibition in medicine than the rule against the killing of patients by doctors. This prohibition is rooted in some medical codes and principles. Out standing among the principles surrounding these prohibitions are the principles of beneficence and non-maleficience. The contents of these principles in a way mark the professional integrity of the physician. But the modern approach to health care services pulls a demand for the respect of the individual right of self-determination. This demand is now glaring in almost all the practices pertaining to health care services. In end of life decisions, this modern demand is found much in practices like physician- assisted suicide and euthanasia. It demands that the physician ought to respect the wish and choice of the patient, and so, must assist the patient in bringing about his or her death when requested. In such manner, this views the principle of autonomy as absolute and should not be overridden in any circumstance.</p><p>However, the physician on his part is part of the medical profession that has integrity to protect. This integrity in medical profession which demands that the physician works only towards the health care of the patient and to what reduces diseases and deaths often go contrary to this respect for individual autonomy. Thus faced with such requests by patients, the physician always sees his integrity in conflict with his demand to respect the autonomous choice of the patient and so has a dilemma in responding to such requests. This is the focus of this work,"Professional Integrity and the Dilemma in Physician- Assisted Suicide"</p><p>However, the centre of my argument in this work is not merely though necessary to develop general arguments for or against the general justification of PAS, but to critically view the role played by the physicians in assisting the death of their patients as it comes in conflict with the medical obligation and integrity. Is it morally right, out rightly wrong or in certain situation permissible that physicians respond positively to the request of the patients for PAS? This is the overarching moral problem in the morality of physician- assisted suicide, and this work will consider this in line with the main problem in the work “the dilemma of professional physicians in the assistance of suicide.</p>

<p>The two most controversial ends of life decisions are those in which physicians help patients take their lives and when the physician deliberately and directly intervenes to end the patients’ life upon his request. These are often referred to as voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide have continued to be controversial public issues. This controversy has agitated the minds of great thinkers including ethicians, physicians, psychologists, moralists, philosophers even the patient himself. Hence the physician, patient, the public and policy makers have recently had to face several difficult questions.</p><p>Is it morally right to end the life of the patients? Is there any moral difference at all between Voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide? Should a terminally ill patient be allowed to take his life and should the medical profession have the option of helping the patient die. Should voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide be legalised at all? And what actually will be the legal and moral implications if they are allowed.</p><p>In a bid to find a lasting solution to these moral problems and questions has led to two different strong positions viz opponents and proponents of voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. The centre of my argument in this work is not to develop new general arguments for or against voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide but to make a critical ethical comparative analysis of voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. This is the focus of my work. The sole aim of this work is neither to solely condemn nor to support voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide but to critically analyze the two since we live in a world of pluralism.</p>

The two most controversial ends of life decisions are those in which physicians help patients take their lives and when the physician deliberately and directly intervenes to end the patients’ life upon his request. These are often referred to as voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide have continued to be controversial public issues. This controversy has agitated the minds of great thinkers including ethicians, physicians, psychologists, moralists, philosophers even the patient himself. Hence the physician, patient, the public and policy makers have recently had to face several difficult questions. Is it morally right to end the life of the patients? Is there any moral difference at all between Voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide? Should a terminally ill patient be allowed to take his life and should the medical profession have the option of helping the patient die. Should voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide be legalised at all? And what actually will be the legal and moral implications if they are allowed. In a bid to find a lasting solution to these moral problems and questions has led to two different strong positions viz opponents and proponents of voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. The centre of my argument in this work is not to develop new general arguments for or against voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide but to make a critical ethical comparative analysis of voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. This is the focus of my work. The sole aim of this work is neither to solely condemn nor to support voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide but to critically analyze the two since we live in a world of pluralism.

This thesis proposes a model for legalized Physician-Assisted Suicide [PAS] for adoption into Canadian legislation. The basis of this model is one which respects the individual freedom to make end-of-life decisions free from state interference. The research herein supports the provisions contained in Oregon legislation where PAS has been legalized on the basis that the Oregon model is consistent with the guarantees afforded under s.7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Oregon maintains strict regulatory barriers which protect against the threat of abuse which the Supreme Court reasoned in Rodriguez outweighed her s.7 rights to autonomy. This thesis will engage in the theories of Ronald Dworkin who supports the preservation of the sanctity of human life which Sopinka J. held prevailed over s. 7 violations in Rodriguez and seeks a model which respects individual freedom without compromising that sanctity or value of life.