The word ‘euthanasia’ is derived from the Greek word Euthanasia is sought not only by those suffering excruciating pain, but for other reasons such as changes in quality of life resulting from catastrophic physical injury and psychological factors associated with incurable diseases.The current debate on euthanasia sits within a social context that is in a state of flux.Death should be allowed to occur with dignity and comfort when death is inevitable..law classifies the cause of death as the patient’s underlying condition and not the actions of others.Tags: Intermediate Cec Model PapersThesis Statements On The RavenThesis For Persuasive EssayStuck On HomeworkTcp Ip Protocol Research PaperIntroduction Of Essay Writing
The table below sets out which instruments are available in each jurisdiction and the relevant Act.
The common key features and differences between these instruments are summarised below: Advance directives allow competent adults to execute formal directives in writing (except for the ACT where they may be oral), For example, in Queensland a directive specifying the withdrawal or withholding of treatment will only operate in certain circumstances (i.e.
Each state and territory has enacted laws to regulate the act of withholding or withdrawing medical treatment with the effect of hastening death.
These laws provide for instruments that allow, in a formal and binding manner, the previously expressed wishes of competent adults to continue to have influence over the kind of treatment they receive (or do not receive) when they lose competence.
No piece of legislation characterises such practices as euthanasia.
Indeed, as with members of the medical profession, certain government departments have explicitly stated that such instruments do not permit euthanasia. It is not intended to be exhaustive, however it aims to add to considerations of this very complex and sensitive topic through analysis of the domestic regulatory environment relating to both passive and active forms of voluntary euthanasia, and of relevant international laws by way of comparison with domestic regulation.It concludes with a human rights-based analysis of voluntary euthanasia and some commentary on the practice informed by human rights principles.The AMA states that not initiating or withdrawing life-prolonging treatment ‘does not constitute euthanasia or physician assisted suicide’ where a medical practitioner is acting in accordance with good medical practice.Whilst doctors have an ethical duty to preserve life there is also a responsibility to relieve suffering...if the patient has a terminal illness, is in a persistent vegetative state, or is permanently unconscious).although there are circumstances in which a health provider will be protected for non-compliance (for example, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the directive does not reflect the current wishes of the person, or where a directive is uncertain or inconsistent with good medical practice).Health practitioners who act in good faith and/or reasonably refuse to provide or continue medical treatment in reliance on an advance directive are generally taken to be acting with the consent of the patient.First, the Medical Board of Australia and the Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine (ANZSPM) states good medical practice involves medical practitioners: ...Understanding that you do not have a duty to try to prolong life at all cost.All states and territories apart from Tasmania and New South Wales have legislation recognising types of ‘advance directive’ (variously described across jurisdictions).All states and territories have legislation recognising enduring powers of attorney or guardianship.