Euthanasia: The great confusion on world legislations

Euthanasia in 5 minutes. On page 19 of the Journal de Montréal from April 10th 2013 and on page 28 in Le Journal de Québec on the concept of passive euthanasia that can lend to confusion. Publication sources of the Journal de Montréal: Exit International, Dignitas, Société Royale du Canada, Éducaloi.QC.CA, La Presse canadienne, Rue Note that the research sources say a lot... OPERATION INFORMATION: Just a reminder: Ceasing and refusing a treatment are neither euthanasia nor suicide. They are both legal means and are considered as appropriate treatments. READ Demystifying these bothersome words ( The Quebec commission on the question of dying with dignity has never before used this term in their definitions.)

Contrary to what is presented in le Journal de Montréal few countries or states allow these practices :

Only the following countries have recourse to euthanasia or assisted suicide: - Euthanasia: Belgium - Assisted suicide: The Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxemburg, the states of Oregon and Washington (USA)

DESPITE FAVOURABLE PUBLIC OPINION (simplistic surveys), here are a few countries that have REFUSED these practices?

  • USA: 48/50 states voted no
  • France: No
  • Great Britain: No
  • Germany: No
  • Spain: No
  • Italy: No
  • Australia: No

Some evoked reasons for the non-application of euthanasia and assisted suicide in the countries that rejected the motion. The impossibility of applying inclusion criteria and of controling the execution. - The infringement of citizens' fundamental rights (life, security), significant risks for vulnerable citizens (disabled, people with dementia, psychiatric clientèle) - Avoiding that « the right to die » socially translates itself to « the duty to die » (France) The pressure to legalise these practices is great and the ensuing confusion is hemorrhaging.

Judicial point of view ( Let's see how it could apply to doctors practicing euthanasia, which is the reason why our elect want to commit to a decriminalisation of euthanasia) What follows comes from the following website (5th paragraph)

Can the fact of acting out of compassion or with the agreement of the euthanised person influence the result of a criminal prosecution against a person who poses an act of euthanasia? In Canada, when a person is accused of commiting a criminal offense, the judge or the jury must determine if the individual committed the offense that he is accused of or not and, according to the nature of the offense, if the accused intented to commit the crime.

The reasons that push a person to act are not pertinent unless they correspond already existing defence in the Criminal code, like for example, self-defense or provocation. Regardless of the state, the age, the medical condition of the deceased or injured person or the beliefs of the person who comitted the act, if this constitutes a criminal offense, the accused would not be able to defend himself by stating that he wanted to alleviate the victim's suffering. What's more, the fact that the actions were made upon request or with the agreement of the victim of euthanasia would change nothing regarding the question of culpability. In fact, a person cannot legally consent to be injured or to die.

The goal of this conception is to eliminate the fear of the abuse of legally assisted suicide that would bring forth the death of people who never really nor freely consented to death. Once a person has been declared guilty, the court must then pronounce itself on the sentencing to impose on him. During this step however, the motive or motives of the accused, such as the compassion for or the consent of the victim, might influence the judge or translate into a lesser sentence. Source: