Rurik Löfmark, Tore Nilstun, Colleen Cartwright, Susanne Fische, Agnes van der Heide, Freddy Mortier, Michael Norup, Lorenzo Simonato and Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen for the EURELD Consortium
Results: Laws on assisted dying in The Netherlands and Belgium are restricted to doctors. In principle, assisted suicide (but not euthanasia) is not illegal in either Germany or Switzerland, but a doctor’s participation in Germany would violate the code of professional medical conduct and might contravene of a doctor’s legal duty to save life. The Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill proposed in the UK in 2005 focused on doctors, whereas the Proposal on Assisted Dying of the Norwegian Penal Code Commission minority in 2002 did not. Conclusion: A society moving towards an open approach to assisted dying should carefully identify tasks to assign exclusively to medical doctors, and distinguish those possibly better performed by other professions.
The book strives for as complete and dispassionate a description of the situation as possible and covers in detail: the substantive law applicable to euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, withholding and withdrawing treatment, use of pain relief in potentially lethal doses, terminal sedation, and termination of life without a request (in particular in the case of newborn babies); the process of legal development that has led to the current state of the law; the system of legal control and its operation in practice; and, the results of empirical research concerning actual medical practice.
Proponents of assisted suicide believe support for legalisation is growing among lawmakers and the public around the world. In the past year three names have been added to the list of places which permit it. The BBC's Vincent Dowd investigates whether assisted suicide is set to become even more common.
Switzerland's laws that prohibit killing continue to apply in full. Direct, active euthanasia (deliberate killing in order to end the suffering of another person) is therefore also forbidden. By contrast, both indirect, active euthanasia (the use of means having side-effects that may shorten life) and passive euthanasia (rejecting or discontinuing life-prolonging measures) – while not governed by any specific statutory provisions – are not treated as criminal offences provided certain conditions are fulfilled. No legislative action is needed with regard to these three forms of euthanasia. Legal restrictions and a ban on organised assisted suicide are nonetheless open to debate. They are intended to protect human life better, and to prevent organised assisted suicide becoming a profit-driven business.
Marlisa Tiedemann Dominique Valiquet Law and Government Division Revised 17 July 2008 PRB 07-03E PARLIAMENTARY INFORMATION AND RESEARCH SERVICE SERVICE D’INFORMATION ET DE RECHERCHEPARLEMENTAIRES
L’acquittement de l’ancienne médecin cantonale en retenant l’état de nécessité constitue une première en Suisse. Le Ministère public devrait déposer un recours au TF avant la refonte de la législation prévue pour 2011
Le Ministère public neuchâtelois ne fera pas recours contre l’ancien médecin cantonal Daphné Berner, jugée à la fin de l’an dernier pour euthanasie active. Même s’il n’est pas entièrement convaincu par les motifs retenus par le Tribunal de police, il souligne que l’acquittement n’a été prononcé qu’en raison de circonstances très particulières.
RAPSI spoke with Penney Lewis, a law professor at King’s College London and expert on end-of-life issues. Lewis explained that “There aren't any current legislative proposals (being considered by the legislature) although debates are held in the House of Commons on the Director of Public Prosecutions' (DPP) policy on assisted suicide.” Lewis is critical of the DPP’s current policy due to its failure to include any reference to a patient’s condition or experience on the basis of discrimination concerns, its preferential treatment of amateur rather than medically assisted suicide, and its focus on the motives of the suspect rather than those of the patient.
This paper examines the controversial and complex issues of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS). I begin by defining and distinguishing these two terms and explain how they relate to each other. I also describe the medical doctrine of double effect, in which relieving pain comes at the expense of hastening death. Then, I give a brief overview of the common law defense of necessity, which is practically the sole defense available to or used by physicians accused of committing euthanasia or PAS. Finally, I analyze the legal doctrines of euthanasia and PAS, focusing on legislation and cases in the European Union — primarily the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Switzerland — and the U.S. states of Oregon, Washington, and Montana.