There is therefore evidence that protective measures are ineffective and that many people who should not be euthanized or who should not be given steps die in this way. Another source of concern is the fact that violations of the law are not prosecuted and tolerance for violations of the law has increased. Moreover, in the next section, the boundaries of what constitutes «good» euthanasia and SAP practices continue to change, and some of the current practices would have been considered unacceptable just a few decades ago in jurisdictions that legalized these practices. The word euthanasia, which comes from Greece, means a good death1. Euthanasia has different dimensions, ranging from active (introducing something that causes death) to passive (withholding treatment or supports); voluntary (consent) to involuntary (guardian consent) and physician-assisted (if the physician prescribes the drug and the patient or a third party administers the drug to cause death).2,3 The call for premature end of life has contributed to the debate about the role of these practices in health care today. This debate covers complex and dynamic aspects such as legal, ethical, human rights, health, religious, economic, spiritual, social and cultural aspects of civilized society. Here we discuss this complex issue from the perspective of supporters and opponents, and also try to portray the plight of those affected and their caregivers. The objective is to examine the issue of euthanasia from a medical and human rights perspective in the context of the recent Supreme Court decision3 in this context. We must fight for life, against contraception, abortion and euthanasia. Two recent studies contradict the conclusions of Battin and colleagues. Chambaere et al. found that voluntary and involuntary euthanasia occurred primarily in patients aged 80 years or older who were in a coma or had dementia.10 They concluded that «precautions should be taken to protect these patient populations from such practices.» In another study, two of the factors significantly associated with the administration of end-of-life medications by a nurse were the absence of an explicit request from the patient and the patient aged 80 years or older than 15 years.
Constitution of India: The «right to life» is a natural right enshrined in Article 21, but suicide is an unnatural cessation or extinction of life and therefore incompatible and incompatible with the concept of «right to life». It is the duty of the State to protect the life and duty of the physician to care for patients and not to harm them. If euthanasia is legalized, there is a serious fear that the state will refuse to invest in health (working for the right to life). The legalization of euthanasia has led to a sharp decline in the quality of care for terminally ill patients in Holland7. Therefore, there should be no role for euthanasia in any form in a welfare state. Some proponents of euthanasia claim that the above figures are incorrectly representative because many people have expressed their desire or support for euthanasia at some point in their lives, albeit not formally. The counter-argument is that the legal requirement of explicit written consent is important to prevent abuse and abuse. Finally, written consent has become essential in medical research if participants are to undergo surgery, many of whom have a much lower risk of mortality. Recent history is replete with examples of misuse of medical research without explicit consent. The United Nations has concluded that the euthanasia law in the Netherlands violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because it endangers the rights to security and integrity for the life of every human being. The United Nations has also expressed concern that the system may not be able to detect and prevent situations where individuals may be unduly pressured to obtain access or euthanasia and circumvent existing safeguards.
In all jurisdictions, the request for euthanasia must be voluntary, thoughtful, informed and persistent over time. The applicant must give explicit written consent and be competent at the time of the request. Despite these protective measures, more than 500 people in the Netherlands are euthanized against their will every year. In 2005, a total of 2410 deaths by euthanasia or PAS were reported, accounting for 1.7% of all deaths in the Netherlands. More than 560 people (0.4% of all deaths) received lethal substances without explicit consent 7. Out of 5 people euthanized, 1 is euthanized without explicit consent. Attempts to bring these cases to justice have failed and have shown that over time, the judicial system has become more tolerant of such transgressions.5 All jurisdictions, except Switzerland, require consultation with a second physician to ensure that all criteria are met before euthanasia or SAP is initiated. In Belgium, a third doctor must examine the case if the person`s condition is classified as non-fatal. The counsellor must be independent (not related to the care of the patient or health care provider) and provide an objective assessment.
However, Belgium, the Netherlands and Oregon have shown that this procedure is not universally applied.10,13 In the Netherlands, for example, no consultation was requested in 35% of cases of involuntary euthanasia. 7. In 1998, 25 per cent of patients requesting euthanasia in the Netherlands received psychiatric support; In 2010, no one did 16. In addition, non-reporting appears to be associated with no consultation with a second physician.14 Battin et al. 51 reviewed data from Oregon and the Netherlands and, like 30 others, concluded that there is no evidence that vulnerable people, with the exception of people with AIDS, are disproportionately more likely to be euthanized. In this study, the term «vulnerable» was defined as people who are older, female, uninsured, poorly educated, poor, physically disabled or chronically ill, younger than the age of majority, suffering from psychiatric disorders, including depression, or belonging to a racial or ethnic minority. Finlay and George challenged the study on the grounds that susceptibility to SAP or euthanasia cannot simply be categorized by race, sex or other socioeconomic status. Other traits such as emotional state, reaction to loss, personality type, and sense of burden are also important.52 .