Open Access Research Article
EVOLUTION AND JURISPRUDENCE BEHIND THE IDEA OF EUTHANASIA
Published Paper
Article Details
EVOLUTION AND JURISPRUDENCE BEHIND
THE IDEA OF EUTHANASIA
AUTHORED BY
- DRISHTI MEENA
INTRODUCTION
The Greek
words "eu," which means good, and "thanatos," which means
death, are the sources that constructs the word "euthanasia," which
has the etymological meaning of "good death." But with evolving time
the meaning of the word varied and now is considered as form of eradicating
what is considered as leading less dignified lives, hence, accepting as a
“dignified death.”[1]
Now, the question that arises here is what entails ‘dignified life’ and who
decides such thing? History has been an example of justifying such concept
arbitrarily.
With the
evolving times the concept of euthanasia has been accepted and legalized in
many countries in various forms. Currently countries like Belgium (since 2002),
Canada (since 2016), Colombia (since 2015), Luxemburg (since 2009), Netherlands
(since 2002), Victoria (since 2017) and Western Australia (since 2019) and
other nations have implemented legislations to recognize and legalize
euthanasia.[2]
However, the issues and debate associated with euthanasia has been centuries
old.[3]
1. EUTHANASIA DURING ANCIENT TIMES
Hippocrates,
known for his Hippocratic Oath, protected patient’s life through medicine prone
to fatal illness.[4]
Around 4th-5th century BC, this oath, a guide for
doctors, stated that “I will not give poison to anyone, even if they ask me,
nor will I suggest to anyone that they take it.” It is essential to observe
that the Hippocratic school marks the true beginning of scientific medicine
since it is able to distinguish between the healer and the sorcerer, the one
who preserves life and the one who terminates it.[5]
Since
suicide brought on by impatience and a failure to find a solution to pain or
illness was tolerated when access to medications was limited, it was believed
that terminally ill people who has ended their lives had good reason to do so
throughout the Roman Empire.[6]
Later, with the rise of the Catholic church, this altered. Anyone who tried to
take their own life during this time was not allowed to be buried in the earth.[7]
1.1 IDEAS FROM GREEK AND ROMAN THOUGHTS
During
classic Greek era there was no “euthanasia” as a concept but rather it was
considered as suicide which often times are result of collaboration of other
people like doctors who provided poison to end the life. There is no uniformity
on such thoughts among Greek and Latin philosophers.[8]
1.1.1 SOCRATES AND PLATO
The
components like moral truth based upon human nature and use of human reason are
the discussed and defended under Socrates’ and Plato’s thoughts. Plato in his
well-known work, Phaedo, presents his opposition to the suicide.[9]
In this work, life is not considered as possession of human to be disposed of
at will. The life is given by gods and hence, can’t abandon it at free will.[10]
Socrates recognizes that a human body to seek the truth are placed with many
impediments such as pain, desire, suffering etc., but the same cannot be
despised to suffer such impediments.[11]
Socrates relayed that any impediment that flourishes does not entail that the
care of the body can be readily rejected.[12]
Later,
Plato’s Republic gave some support to suicide or voluntary euthanasia for
certain situations. Plato argues that rational suicide is possible in case
where a person is suffering from incurable and wasting disease or disability.[13]
And he understood that it is not ideal justice to strive every possible means
to keep alive.[14]
Here, Plato differentiated between use of every possible means to sustain
bodily life and use of “reasonable means” based on person’s benefits and
burdens. Therefore, the case presented here is to allow in certain situations
to die rather than opting for self-killing.[15]
Plato in his work Book of Laws[16]
have given certain exceptions to justify such practices but in reality, such
action is just to show some compassion to people who have acted upon their
decision to take their life.
1.1.2 ARISTOTLE
Aristotle questions
the legality of suicide in his work Nicomachean Ethics.[17]
According to Aristotle, every voluntary human act has purpose i.e. have a good
life flourishing with human happiness.[18]
Aristotle considered justice as one of the moral virtues in relation to suicide
and saw suicide as an injustice. He does not saw suicide as an injustice against
the person who takes his own life but rather considered it as an injustice
against the very state or society that is deprived of the participation of life
of that person.[19]
He considered suicides as an act of weakness in the face of affliction, lack of
courage or from the contrary, rashness, i.e., an excess of courage.[20]
Therefore, for Aristotle, no prudent person with reasonable thinking will
commit an act of suicide.[21]
1.1.3 STOIC
AND CICERO
Stoic’s
philosophy was based on understanding order and reason for the things, giving
rationality as to how the universe is governed. He defined life and death as a
primary purpose to determine such rationality. The primary purpose of human
existence is to live in conformity with such reason as to give rationality to
the nature. According to Stoic suicide with reason which is morally accepted is
acceptable, as it is the only one which can justify the virtue of the act.[22]
There are
many reasons given by Stoic to justify the act of suicide as an obligation to
others for the sake of family, friends, country, causes, etc.[23]
Another morally accepted is ‘rational suicide’ by killing own self to free
themselves from pain, incurable illness or mutilation. To put it another way,
death was an act of reclaiming authority, bravely thwarting the threat of
apathy.[24]
According
to Cicero, there is a natural rule that may be discovered by human
investigation and is used by rational reason to understand the purposes of
human goodness. While acknowledging the internal good of self-determination
takes precedence over the influence of external events and that virtues are
important to attain this, he also acknowledged the significance of recognizing
a person's integration of mind and body.[25]
Cicero felt that physical existence could not be viewed as a mere desire or as
an optional tool in the pursuit of the more "noble good," which in
the idea of the Socrates was perfection of soul. In simpler words, unless there
was a clear indication from the gods that the deed was in accordance with the
natural rule prescribed by just reason i.e. human reason in accordance with the
will of the eternal, a person could not commit suicide, even in more extreme
circumstances.[26]
1.1.4 EPICUREANISM
The crucial
aspect in comprehending Epicurus's position is that he was actually more
cautious about endorsing suicide. He explained that conquering the fear of
dying and fighting against the body's need to hurt ourselves in order to
experience the "higher pleasure" of doing so was a crucial component
of the objective of fulfilling our wishes.[27]
Such thoughts can easily be misunderstood being influenced by hedonistic
doctrine. Their stance on self-killing is more akin to one of tolerance for
individuals who were unable to exhibit the required level of control than it is
to be extremely accepting of the activity.[28]
It was Hegesias that made the audacious claim that some suicides were
acceptable. He preached that suicide was a desirable way to end a painful life
that could not be endured.[29]
In this era the arts, sciences, and medicine were all ruled by
Catholicism, it is then when the science went asleep. Suicide was not widely
accepted because of this strong religious inclination. At this period, suicide
victims were not allowed to be buried "Christianly," which meant they
were not eligible for a funeral or for their relatives to be present during a
religious ceremony. Particularly for those whose lives were dominated by
illness and suffering, the manner in which one passed away was considered the
ultimate measure of one's worth, therefore it was unimaginable to get any form
of compassionate relief, no matter how severe the agony.[30]
Can
“voluntary martyrdom” be considered as suicide? If yes, why was it accepted by
society as an act of selflessness and self-killing was abhorred by the society
as an act against natural order of life? To justify martyrdom, it has to be
differentiated from intention self-killing. One of the elements that play roles
in such scenarios is, facing death rather than renouncing faith. Although accepting
death rather than rejecting religion is a free decision, death need not be
considered to be a component of the martyr's purpose.[31]
The term "voluntary martyrdom" emphasizes a willingness to face death
for the sake of a ‘just’ cause whether it is in name of religion, political
goals etc.,[32]
but it does not sufficiently distinguish between cases where martyrdom has been
caused by self-intended death and where it has not.[33]
2.1.1 AUGUSTINE
Influenced
by neo-Platonic thoughts, Augustine didn’t devalue corporeal body in
anticipation of eternal life.[34]
He saw life as a free gift from the God to be respected.[35]
For Augustine there is contrast between life of Jesus and zealous of martyrdom,
that didn’t adhere with earthly life and duties of stewardship.[36]
Such stewardship was evident to Augustine when Christian virgins refrained from
taking their own lives in retaliation for being defiled.[37]
Therefore, Augustine believed that the value of corporeal life was so great
that even a serious violation of human dignity could not justify suicide.[38]
He relays that even under these conditions a private person does not have the
right or authority to choose how and when to leave earthly life.[39] According to Augustine, authentic
martyrdom necessitated a restriction on the methods used to witness to
religion.
2.1.2 THOMAS AQUINAS
According
to Aquinas, pursuing and doing the good refers specifically to pursuing those things
that are recognized as legitimate human goods by reason and our capacity. He
included preservation of human life in existence as one of such goods.[40]
Aquinas doesn’t support the intentional killing whether self-inflicted or by
the help of others.[41]
Aquinas
gave four reasons for his condemnation of suicide.[42]
First, dominion to make such decision is with God and its delegates, the
government, not with the individuals.[43]
Second, he consider suicide as an injustice against society. Since no
individual exists in isolation, their acts always have an impact on the larger
community, which is realized within the framework of a shared participative
common good. It is impossible to separate an individual's actions from their
effects.[44]
Third, pursuing good of preserving existence of human life which shows capacity
for practical human reason.[45]
Fourth, acting against such good would be acting against charity i.e. love that
one owes to everyone, including oneself. Suicide is an act which is against
such charity. It is impossible to genuinely love oneself and act towards one's
own demise.[46]
Thomas More
and Francis Bacon gave the concept of euthanasia a eugenic meaning in their
discourse, which was comparable to the ideas presented in Plato's Republic i.e.
hastening the demise of a gravely ill individual who is not expected to recover.
During this time, death started to be viewed as the final act of life, and
euthanasia gained its contemporary meaning.[47]
Thomas More
asserted in his work "Utopia" that the dying should receive the
necessary and supportive care in the ideal society and in cases of extreme
suffering, it may be advised to end the suffering, but only with the consent of
the patient.[48]
This thoughts was refuted in 17th century by Johann Andreae in his work
"Christianopolis," arguing that the severely and incurably ill have
the right to live even in the face of distress and alienation and that their
care should be centered on indulgence and support.[49]
This view was supported by many physicians such as physician Christoph Hufeland
stated that a doctor's sole responsibility was to save life, regardless of
whether it was a fortunate or unlucky circumstance or if it was worthwhile to
live.[50]
The
Renaissance saw the emergence of what is known as a "turn to the
subject," and with it the notion that mankind is more dependent on its own
self-created identity than on any external design, whether by nature or divine
interference.[51] Pico
della Mirandola, in his work “Oration on the Dignity of Man,” articulated the
view that the human being is more the creator and shaper of its own existence
than any external force.[52]
Mirandola believed that suicide may be an indication of the dignity of the
human individual as a competent sculptor of their own existence.[53]
3.1.1 MICHEL DE MONTAIGNE
He
articulated a combination of Epicurean and Stoic perspectives in favor of the
legality of suicide in specific situations.[54]
The best death is the one that is most willing. Life depends on other people's
happiness; death depends on autonomy on oneself.[55]
Suicide should therefore not be the subject of any kind of absolute norm that
forbids the practice, rather, it should be seen more as a matter of personal
decision-making, to be left to be made on the conscience of the individual (at
least in situations where the act of self-intentional killing is motivated as a
mercy from conditions of incurable pain and suffering).[56]
3.1.2 JOHN DONNE
One
noteworthy aspect of Donne's work was his attempt to show that suicide did not
violate the laws of reason or nature or the law of the God.[57]
Donne claimed in Part I of Biathanatos that, death itself can also be
considered natural if life is. One may argue that a natural desire to die is a
component of what it is to be human. He explained that the yearning for
"death as release" is also part of "nature's fabric."[58]
Donne
argued in Part Two of Biathanatos that, suicide cannot always be viewed as
being against the law of reason, which is present in both civil and canon law. Suicide
was not an essential wrong that required it to be considered a crime against
the state or the society.[59]
Donne, in
Part Three of Biathanatos, made the case that suicide and God's will do not
always conflict. He said that the Bible's canon contains no prohibitions
against suicide. It did not seem essential to violate this natural inclination
to die if one chose to expedite one's own demise.[60]
3.1.3 THOMAS HOBBES
The
strongest opposition to suicide notions may be found in Thomas Hobbes' writings
and his interpretation of the "law of human nature."[61]
Hobbes' materialist interpretation of human nature, which reduces everything to
an analysis of wants and aversions, suggests that humans' innate need of their
self-preservation is just a recurrent drive.[62]
Hobbes
believed that it is self-evident that the human desires and aversions
inevitably strives to continue existing, and that to actively resist this drive
would be to violate this rule of human nature. Therefore, to block this great
permanent urge would be to act against this rule of our nature.[63]
Hobbes believed that the only thing that might lead a person to conclude that
going against one's inherent instinct for survival would be
"unnatural," is in cases of insanity.[64]
There were
two incidences of euthanasia that occurred in 19th century. First,
in 1860, Sicily, Italy, where Giuseppe Bandi, an officer of Giuseppe Garibaldi,[65]
got injured in the Battle of Calatafimi and was admitted in San Michele Convent.
There he met two soldiers, one of which was suffering from broken leg who had
gangrene and the other from bullet to his right arm. Both of them were
extremely sick, and none of the medical staff had the supplies necessary to
provide them with proper medical care. They pleaded to be allowed to die after
which they were given an opium tablet, which soothed them till they died.[66]
Second,
where a Swedish doctor, Alex Munthe,[67]
seeing so much suffering of patients in Hotel Dieu in Paris, France, began
administering morphine. In his memoir he recounted an incident where surgeon, Paul
Jules Tillaux and Pasteur of Pasteur Insititute, made an honorable decision to
help two Russian men who had contracted rabies, die softly.[68]
4.1.1 JEREMY BENTHAM
The
capacity of a rule or set of actions to maximize pleasure and minimize pain is
evaluated.[69] He
had a purely hedonistic stance, believing that people should pursue pleasure
and avoid pain. Bentham's basic stance on the subject of suicide was that, if a
person's existence became too burdensome, it may be ethically acceptable to try
to terminate it since the life had outlived their usefulness or utility. The
claim that society has on an individual's life wanes with such suffering.[70]
Bentham was
against the adoption of criminal sanctions that prohibit the practice of
suicide.[71] If
life loses its beneficial qualities because of pain and suffering, it can no
longer be an overall good but instead cause positive harm to the individual who
is impacted, hence such a legislation would not be in the best interests of maximum
people.[72]
While
evaluating morality of actions, Bentham was extremely critical of what he
perceived to be significant systemic flaws in traditional natural law theory
regarding the examination of actions surrounding killing. Questions arose such as what made killing
non-innocent human life acceptable as a punishment? Why was there no longer
sanctified protection for that life? Why is it that the non-innocent man was
considered no longer useful to the society and subjected to death sentence and
the person who is in pain or suffering and have nothing to contribute to the
society is still made to live? Bentham believed that traditional natural theory
was rife with contradictions because of the exceptions it attempted to make
around the concept of innocent human life.[73]
4.1.2 JOHN STUART MILL
Mill
accepted the central tenet of Bentham's philosophy: that acts should be judged
according to how best to advance the greatest pleasure for the greatest number.[74]
Mill emphasized individual liberty and freedom from restraint as the most
effective means of maximizing pleasure for humans.[75]
Encouraging autonomy and personal growth would be the ideal means of advancing
this overarching utilitarian objective.
The
renowned "harm principle," eloquently articulates Mill's defense of
individual liberty. He believed that certain damages that are essentially
self-serving might be limited in order to protect liberty itself, even if doing
so would clearly contradict advancing the greater good and the long-term
interests of humanity as a progressive species.[76]
The fundamental
tenet of Mill's argument is that the government ought to maintain a high degree
of neutrality when it comes to imposing coercive theories based on constrained
perfectionist conceptions of the ideal existence. However, this freedom is
limited by the need to prevent harm to others' rights.[77]
On the lines of Mill’s thoughts on liberty, it can be interpreted that
individuals have the right to live or die as they see fit, as long as they do
not cause harm to others and make a rational and voluntary decision. If a
rational individual decides to die quickly due to great pain or suffering, it
should be considered a valid exercise of liberty and not prohibited by the
state.[78]
The Nazi
Holocaust was the systematic persecution and death of about six million Jews by
the Nazi regime and its accomplices. The word "Holocaust" is of Greek
origin and means "sacrifice by fire." Nazis belief was that Germans
were a "master race" whereas Jews, mentally and physically disabled and
various other Slavic groups are of "inferior" origin and did not
deserve to exist.[79]
During Adolf Hitler's Euthanasia program, around 275,000 people with physical
or mental disabilities were killed.[80]
The Nazis
used the term "Euthanasia" as systematic death of persons with
"life unworthy of living" who were imprisoned in institutions,
whether they were there with their consent or if any family member was aware of
their whereabouts.[81]
The code name for this covert operation was Aktion T4. The initiative initially
targeted infants and extremely young children. The program swiftly grew to
include adults and older children with disabilities. T4 troops brought the
chosen victims to the central gassing facilities. The victims were informed
they were going to get a physical examination and a shower to clean themselves,
instead, they were killed in those gas chambers.[82]
In 1938,
one of the earliest documented examples of euthanasia occurred in Germany. That
history knows it as the story of child K, in which the minor's father wrote to
Hitler requesting euthanasia for his son since the boy had a serious mental
handicap and major morphic problems. Hitler agreed to carry out the
treatment on child K and the program spread across Aleman territory. A list of
disorders and conditions that were judged undesirable to be transferred to
Hitler's superior Aryan race was established, consequently, any infant with
stupidity, mongolism, deafness, vision impairment, paralysis, and spinal,
head or hip deformities or disfigurements were considered eligible for
euthanasia.[83]
In 1941,
Church representatives condemned the program's acts, describing them as sheer
murder. On August 23, 1941, Hitler had ordered suspension of Aktion T4 but they
were covertly restarted in August 1942.[84]
Instead of being killed at central gassing facilities, victims were now fatally
injected or overdosed on drugs or starvation in a number of clinics located
across Austria and Germany. It was dubbed “savage euthanasia.” Up to the
last stages of World War II, the Euthanasia Program was in place.[85]
After
Nuremberg Trials, the emergence of novel approaches to interfere in the
health-disease dynamic spurred biotechnology. Furthermore, the idea of the
critically sick patient and the final stage of life changed as a result of
rising life expectancy and the emergence of illnesses that impair people's
health on a chronic basis.[86]
6. EUTHANASIA IN CURRENT TIMES
In 1995,
the Northern Territory of Australia became the first jurisdiction in the world
to legalize euthanasia; however, the Australian federal Parliament reversed the
law within nine months.[87]
Before euthanasia was made legal in the Netherlands in 2002, it was tolerated
for a while between the middle of the 1980s until 2001, as long as certain
guidelines for practice were followed, as set forth by the Royal Dutch Medical
Association.[88] The
only nation in Latin America that allows assisted suicide that cannot be
carried out without the consent of an impartial committee is Colombia.[89]
Despite the fact that "mercy homicide" was declared legal by the
Colombian Constitutional Court in 1997, procedure guidelines were not
implemented until 2015.[90]
Following the Carter v. Canada,
Supreme Court judgment, euthanasia became lawful in Canada. Provinces were
mandated to create euthanasia-related laws by February 2016, however this
deadline was eventually extended to June 2016.[91]
Switzerland's
penal law from 1942 stated that helping someone commit suicide is not illegal
as long as there are no selfish motives involved. Since the 1980s,
organizations dedicated to the right-to-die movement have interpreted the
statute as granting them the legal authority to run centers that aid anybody
seeking assisted suicide, even those who are non-residents.[92]
The Federal Court of Switzerland established uniform procedure guidelines in
2006, mandating enhanced paperwork and reporting from the organizations who
provide assisted suicide, and expanded the statute to cover those with mental
illnesses.[93]
CONCLUSION
Throughout
human history, the development of assisted suicide and euthanasia has been
painful. In developing these conceptions, the role of the church, politics, and
biological science has been crucial. The euthanasia legal framework and
bioethical principles have been reinforced throughout time. On the other hand,
there is still more to be done to educate the public and medical professionals
about dignified dying and end-of-life care.[94]
The goals of global bioethics to control assisted suicide and euthanasia that
may be accessed in all health systems include scientific literacy, the
definition of brain death, and the reasonable application of these concepts.[95]
End-of-life
care is a topic that many nations are now debating, and new assisted dying laws
have been proposed in a number of jurisdictions. The foundation of
comprehending the necessity to create medical-legal instruments that ensure
people's integrity till the end of their lives appears to be medical education
and preparation in the view of death, particularly of a dignified death.[96]
[1] Yelson
Alejandro Picón-Jaimes, Ivan David Lozada-Martinez, Javier Esteban
Orozco-Chinome, Lina María Montaña-Gómez, María Paz Bolaño-Romero, Luis Rafael
Moscote-Salazar, Tariq Janjua, and Sabrina Rahman, “Euthanasia and assisted
suicide: An in-depth review of relevant historical aspects,” (2022) 75 Annals
of Medicine and Surgery < https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8857436/#bib1>
accessed 24 January 2024.
[2] Sarah Mroz,
Sigrid Dierickx, Luc Deliens, Joachim Cohen and Kenneth Chambaere, “Assisted dying around the world: a status
quaestionis,” (2021) 10(3) Annals of Palliative Medicine
accessed 28 January 2024.
[3] Jack C.
Willke, Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia:
Past and Present (Hayes Pub 1998); Georgia Noon,
“On Suicide,”
(1978) 39(3) Journal of the History of Ideas
accessed 28 January 2024.
[4] Maribel Bont,
Katherine Dorta, Julio Ceballos, Anna Randazzo and Eliexer Urdaneta-Carruyo, “Euthanasia: a Historical Hermeneutical,”
(2007) 5(2) Community and Health
accessed 03 February 2024.
[5] Pablo
Requena Meana, “Euthanasia,” (2012) Philosophica: Philosophical Encyclopedia
online
accessed 24 January 2024.
[6] ibid.
[7] Picón-Jaimes and others (n 1).
[8] Meana (n 5).
[9] Plato, Complete Works: Phaedo (John M. Cooper ed, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1997).
[10] John M. Cooper, “Greek Philosophers on Euthanasia and Suicide,”
in Suicide and Euthanasia: Historical and
Contemporary Themes (Baruch Brody ed, Kluwer Academic
Press, 1989).
[11] Michael M. Uhlmann, “Western Thought,” in Last Rights?: Assisted Suicide and
Euthanasia Debated (Michael H. Uhlmann ed, William B. Eerdmans Publishing,
1998).
[12] David Novak, Suicide and Morality: The Theories of Plato, Aquinas and Kant
(Scholars Press, 1975).
[13] Paul Carrick, Medical Ethics in Antiquity: Philosophical Perspectives on Abortion and
Euthanasia (D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1985).
[14] Christopher Rowe, Greek Ethics (Hutchison, 1976).
[15] David Novak, Suicide and Morality: The Theories of Plato, Aquinas and Kant
(Scholars Press, 1975).
[16] Plato, The Laws (G. M. A. Grube ed., Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.,
1984).
[17] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. The Basic Works of Aristotle (Richard McKeon
ed, W. D. Ross trs, Random House, 1941).
[18] J.L. Ackrill, Aristotle (Clarendon Press, 1981).
[19] Cooper (n 10) 22-34.
[20] Carrick (n 13) 143.
[21] A.W. Mair, “Suicide (Greek and Roman),” in Encyclopaedia of Religion and
Ethics, vol. 12 (J. Hastings ed, T & T. Clark, 1992), 26-30; Kenneth W.
Kemp, “Euthanasia,” (1998) 72 American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly
accessed 30 January 2024.
[22] Miriam Griffin, “Philospohy, Cato,
and Roman Suicide,” (1986) 33 Greece and Rome.
[23] Miriam Griffin, “Roman Suicide,” in Medicine and Moral
Reasoning (K. W. M. Fulford, Grant R. Gillett and Janet Martin Soskice eds,
Cambridge University Press, 1994).
[24] ibid 115.
[25] Cicero, On Old Age (De Senectute)
accessed 31 January 2024.
[27] ibid 112-114.
[28] Cooper (n 10) 29.
[29] Griffin, Roman Suicide (n 23) 114.
[30] Bont and others (n 4).
[31] Augustine Regan, “The Worth of
Human Life,” (1968) 6 Studia Moralia.
[32] Christopher Kaczor, “Faith and
Reason and Physician-Assisted Suicide,” (1998) 4(2) Christian Bioethics
accessed 01 February 2024.
[33] ibid 184-187.
[34] Christopher Kirwan, Augustine (Routledge, 1989).
[35] Darrel. W. Amundsen, Medicine, Society, and Faith in the Ancient
and Medieval Worlds (Johns Hopkin Press, 1996).
[36] William E. Stempsey, “Laying Down
One's Life for Oneself,” (1998) 4(2) Christian Bioethics
accessed 01 February 2024.
[37] Kirwan (n 34) 204-208.
[38] Augustine of Hippo, City of God (H. Bettenson trs, Penguin,
1972).
[39] ibid 22-27.
[40] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (English Dominican
Fathers trs, Benziger, 1948).
[41] Joseph Boyle, “Praeter Intentionem
in Aquinas,” (1978) 42(4) Thomist; Christian Brugger, “Praeter Intentionem in Aquinas and Issues in Bioethics” in Bioethics with Liberty and Justice
(Christopher Tollesfsen ed, Philosophy and Medicine, 2011)
accessed 02 February 2024.
[42] Aquinas (n 40) II-II, q. 64, a 5.
[43] Stempsey (n 36) 215.
[44] Augustine Regan, “Moral Argument
on Self-Killing,” (1980) 18 Studia Moralia.
[45] Joseph Boyle, “Sanctity of life and Suicide: Tensions and
Developments within Common Morality,” in Suicide and Euthanasia: Historical and Contemporary Themes (Baruch
Brody ed, Philosophy and Medicine, 1989).
[46] Regan (n 44) 301-307.
[47] Soheil Sabriseilabi and James
Williams, “Dimensions of religion and attitudes toward euthanasia,” (2022)
46(5) Death Studies
accessed 05 February 2024.
[49] Klaus Bergdolt, “Current and historical
aspects of euthanasia,” (2016) 32(2) Ars Medica Magazine of Medical Sciences
< https://www.arsmedica.cl/index.php/MED/article/view/268> accessed 05
February 2024.
[50] Dietrich Von Engelhardt, “Euthanasia in between shortening life and
aiding death: past experiences, present challenges,” (2002) 8(1) Acta Bioethica
accessed 05 February 2024.
[51] Gary B. Ferngren, “The Ethics of Suicide in the Renaissance and
Reformation,” in Suicide and
Euthanasia: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (Baruch A. Brody ed,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989).
[52] Giovanni Pico della Mirandola,
Oration on the Dignity of Man (A. Robert Caponigri trs, Regnery/Gateway, 1956).
[53] Jacques Choron, Death and Western Thought (Macmillan,
1963).
[54] Mark Sacharoff, “Suicide and
Brutus,” (1972) 33(1) Journal of the History of Ideas.
[55] Michel de Montaigne, The Essays (Charles Cotton trs,
Britannica, 1952).
[56] Paterson (n 26) 15.
[57] John Donne, Biathanatos (Michael Rudick and Margaret P. ed, Garland, 1982).
[58] ibid 45-83.
[59] ibid 84-144.
[60] Ibid 145-190.
[61] Georges Minois, History of Suicide: Voluntary Death in
Western Culture (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999)
[62] Gary B. Herbert, “Fear of Death
and the Foundations of Natural Right in the Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes,”
(1994) 7 Hobbes Studies.
[63] ibid 56-68.
[64] Thomas Hobbes, A Dialogue Between a Philosopher and a
Student of the Common Laws of England (University of Chicago Press, 1971).
[65] Giuseppe Bandi, I Mille Da Genova a Capua (The thousand: from Genoa to Capua) (Nabu
Press, 2014).
[68] Licata, Nicoli and Armocida (n 66).
[71] ibid 112-13.
[72] Paterson (n 26) 23.
[73] Ross Harrison, Bentham (Routledge, 1983).
[75] David Lyons, “Liberty and Harm to
Others,” Mill’s On Liberty: Critical
Essays (Gerald Dworkin ed, Rowman & Littlefield, 1997).
[76] John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism. On Liberty (Mary Warnock
ed, Fontana, 1962).
[77] Paterson (n 26) 25.
[79] Bont and others (n 4).
[80] Picón-Jaimes and others (n 1).
[81] United States Holocaust Memorial
Museum, “Euthanasia Program and Aktion T4,” Holocaust Encyclopedia
accessed 11 February 2024.
[82] ibid.
[83] Maria Paz
Campos Pérez, “Eutanasia Y Nazismo,” (2014) Universidad Pública de Navarra
accessed 11 February 2024.
[84] United States Holocaust Memorial
Museum (n 81).
[85] Bont and others (n 4).
[87] Joachim Cohen and Kenneth
Chambaere, “Euthanasia,”
(2021) Access Science, McGraw Hill
accessed 26 January 2024.
[88] ibid.
[89] Emanuel and others (n 48).
[91] Cohen and Chambaere (n 87).
[92] Rod D MacLeod, Donna M Wilson and
Phillipa Malpas, “Assisted or Hastened Death: The Healthcare Practitioner’s
Dilemma,” (2012) 4(6) Global Journal of Health Science
[94] Picón-Jaimes and others (n 1).
[95] Carmen Velasco Bernal and Jose
Maria Trejo-Gabriel-Galan, “Euthanasia laws in Spain and in the world: Medical
aspects,” (2022) 54(1) Atencion Primeria
[96] Marco Di Paolo, Federica Gori,
Luigi Papi and Emanuela Turillazzi, “A review and analysis of new Italian law
219/2017: Provisions for informed consent and advance directives treatment,”
(2019) 20 BMC Medical Ethics
Article Information
EVOLUTION AND JURISPRUDENCE BEHIND THE IDEA OF EUTHANASIA
Authors: DRISHTI MEENA
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/03/24
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.