SHOULD EUTHANASIA BE PERMITTED IN CASES OF TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS?

Should euthanasia be permitted in cases of terminally ill patients?

Introduction

Semantic differences between euthanasia and cessation or suspension of therapy, poses many problems and sometimes leads to confusion in the debate. According to the Hastings Center (1987), the word processing support ("life sustaining treatment") sets out any work, technology, medical procedure or medication administered to a patient to postpone ("forestall") the moment of death, the treatment affects whether or not life-threatening illness or biological functions. This definition includes the more restrictive proposed in Sweden: Mechanical ventilation, oxygenation bypass and circulatory support, dialysis, pacemakers, pharmacological treatment with vasoactive drugs, diuretics, antibiotics, cytostatics, blood transfusion, nutrition and hydration.

For the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association, the definitions are: A treatment support ("life sustaining treatment") is a treatment that serves only to prolong life without reversing the underlying disease. This includes, but is not limited to the medical ventilation, hemodialysis, chemotherapy, antibiotics, nutrition and hydration. "Passive euthanasia" is used to describe a withdrawal or limitation of treatment medium ("Withdrawal or withholding), but this term is very controversial. WADA (1992) retains the term "euthanasia", the administration of a lethal agent to a patient with the aim to relieve intolerable and incurable suffering. Voluntary euthanasia ("voluntary euthanasia") is a euthanasia of a competent person at his request. Non-voluntary euthanasia ("Non-voluntary euthanasia") is a euthanasia to an incompetent person, at the request of a person designated as the representative ("surrogate"). The involuntary euthanasia ("involuntary euthanasia") is a euthanasia without the consent of a competent person. . The establishment of a palliative treatment which can have side effects described by the term "double effect euthanasia (" double effect euthanasia "). Prendergast (1998) proposes to classify deaths into five categories: first, the brain death, which is a particular class, marked by irreversible cessation of all functions of the brain as a whole, and based on specific diagnostic tests. On the other hand, patients who received active treatment and aggressive maneuvers including resurrection ("resuscitation"). Finally, patients who received aggressive treatment, but no maneuvers Resurrection (CPR), patients for whom a measure of forbearance ("withholding") or terminate ("withdrawal") has been taken. The failure was defined as the decision not to institute appropriate medical treatment and potentially beneficial for the patient, with the understanding ("understanding") that the patient would likely die without the treatment in question. Cessation was defined as withdrawal of treatment stocks, with the explicit intention not to substitute an alternative treatment equivalent, with the expectation that the patient died as a result of the change in treatment. The definitions of Turner (1996) are, for the withdrawal ("Withdrawal"): gradual withdrawal or discontinuation of treatment established medium, including intermittent treatments (hemodialysis) and for the suspension or abstention ("withholding"): when a new treatment, necessary to continue the support, has not been established, or when current therapy was not increased (inotropic drugs), including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Treatment stands ventilation, inotropes, antibiotics, anti-arrhythmic drugs, hemodialysis, nutrition, blood products, and intravenous ...