As most countries abstain from the right to euthanasia, the Lower House of Parliament on November 28, 2000 passed a bill, legalizing euthanasia in the Netherlands. Will this law impact the beliefs and ideals of other countries and cause them to re-evaluate their medical procedures? In “Why Physicians? Reflections on the Netherlands’ New Euthanasia Law,” Jos V. M. Welie provides a descriptive overview of the history of the Dutch penal code on euthanasia in the Netherlands. In “Euthanizing Life,” John F. Kavanaugh discusses an anorexic patient who was illegally euthanized and presents Judge Miner’s offered opinion based on equal protection of the law.
In “Why Physicians? Reflections on the Netherlands’ New Euthanasia Law,” Welie introduces the audience to the origin of the law and states his opposition to it. The next few paragraphs describe the history of article 40 of the Dutch penal code and how it excused physicians from euthanizing at a time when it was illegal. “Article 40 waives the liability to punishment for anyone who commits a crime while compelled to do so by force majeure, that is, by a psychological or moral force so strong that the perpetrator could not resist it” (Welie 42). Many doctors felt liable in not obeying the law, however, they felt morally wrong in prolonging a particular patients’ suffering. Physicians are faced with the dilemma of whether or not relieving a patient’s suffering is worth the risk of being prosecuted and losing their license to practice medicine.
How would courts measure this so called “psychological or moral force” described in Article 40 of the Dutch penal code? Welie states that when confronted with prosecution, physicians would base their defense on “medical exception...
... middle of paper ...
... resist medical treatment, which may result in death, but are unable to have a doctor do the unfortunate job for us.
Welie’s article makes a great transition from describing the history of euthanasia to reflecting upon the present situation. He proposes many of his own thoughts to the issue and makes the reader question the differences in medical law between America and the Netherlands. Kavanaugh, in his article, tells a surprising story that keeps reader intrigued and follows it with an informative viewpoint from a judge. Overall, these articles do a plausible job on describing how euthanasia is practiced in another country.
Works Cited
Welie, Jos V. M. “Why Physicians? Reflections on the Netherlands’ New Euthanasia
Law.” The Hastings Center Report Jan/Feb 2002: 42-44
Kavanaugh, John F. “Euthanizing Life” America May 2001: 28
One of the major events in Harper Lee’s award-winning novel To Kill a Mockingbird is Tom Robinson’s trial. It is based on the Scottsboro Case that took place in 1931 in Alabama, in which several black men were accused of raping two white women. Both the Scottsboro Boys and Tom Robinson are unfairly judged, however, because of prejudice against colored people. The racial discrimination makes whites’ testimony more believable even when it contradicts itself. The same happens in To Kill a Mockingbird. As we delve deeper into the case and get increasingly closer to the truth, it is quite suprising to see that Mayella Ewell is the true villain rather than a victim. She shall and must bear full responsibility for her actions because she makes the decision to tempt Tom Robinson, gives false testimony in court that directly leads to Tom’s death, and has been well aware of the consequences of her behaviors.
Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird portrayed an era of extreme prejudice and ignorance. Throughout the novel, these specific characteristics were noticed in the behavior of Maycomb’s residents, especially during the trial of Tom Robinson – a highly publicized court case involving a black man convicted of raping a white girl from a despicable family. Although it became obvious throughout the trial that Robinson was innocent, and the girl’s father was the real culprit, Tom Robinson was convicted mainly due to social prejudice toward his race. The unjust result of this trial deeply disturbed the main characters of the novel: Scout and Jem, the children of the defense attorney of the trial, Atticus Finch. Since the story took place in the 1930s, racism was still widely accepted in society, and most of the residents in Maycomb openly professed their derogatory views on people of a different race or social standard. Growing up in a family that believed in egalitarianism, Scout and Jem faced backlash from the community since their father was fighting for a black man in the Tom Robinson trial. Amid these two highly conflicting environments, Scout and Jem had many unanswered questions and no support in the community during these tough times. Additionally, the Maycomb community was plagued with injustice due to discrimination and racism. However, there was one character in the novel who remained open-minded and unprejudiced even in the face of tradition and communal ignorance. A close neighbor of the Finch’s, who shared the same moral views as Atticus, Miss Maudie served as a mother figure to young Scout and Jem, who were going through a tough time in the community. Although Miss Maudie may not have had enough power to change the prejudice...
New Nationalism focused on eradicating economic inequality. In 2007, the top 1 percent of Americans owned 23.5 percent of the nation’s wealth (Pear, 2011). This problem has increased, not gone away, since Roosevelt addressed it in 1910. Unfairness in the tax code has become a prominent topic of political discussion. President Obama called for alterations to the U.S. tax system, which allows millionaires to pay lower rates than middle-class workers like teachers and firefighters, in his 2012 State of the Union address (“Remarks of President Barack Obama – As prepared for delivery State of the Union Address,” 2012.). In December, the president traveled to Osawatomie to speak. He echoed Roosevelt’s New Nationalism, saying he believes “this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share” (Fox, 2011). Although he spoke in Os...
In the early twentieth century, the United States was undergoing a dramatic social change. Slavery had been abolished decades before, but the southern states were still attempting to restrict social interaction among people of different races. In particular, blacks were subject to special Jim Crow laws which restricted their rights and attempted to keep the race inferior to whites. Even beyond these laws, however, blacks were feeling the pressure of prejudice. In the legal system, blacks were not judged by a group of their peers; rather, they were judged by a group of twelve white men. In serious court cases involving capital offenses, the outcome always proved to be a guilty verdict. In Harper Lee’s novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, the plot revolves around a Depression-era court case of a black man accused of raping a white woman. The defendant Tom Robinson is presumed guilty because of one thing alone: the color of his skin.
Racism is a targeted issue in Harper Lee’s 1930s-based novel, To Kill a Mockingbird. In Maycomb County, a fictional town in Alabama, it seemed taboo to be antiracist. When a trial involving a black man accused of raping a local white female, eyebrows are raised and tempers take over the town. At this time, it is highly unlikely for a black man to be acquitted of charges even with a substantial amount of evidence to prove him innocent. With little hope, Tom Robinson is defended by Atticus, a local lawyer. Atticus knows nearly immediately that this case will not end in justice due to the color of Tom Robinson’s skin (Lee, 80).
In fact, traditional medical objectives remain intact and that includes caring, curing and alleviating patient’s suffering. Opponents of euthanasia would thus question the core morality of medicine if the fundamental objective were altered in ways that are not compatible with the protection of human dignity, such ending the life of a patient. Medical ethics thus appreciates the rights of any physician to denounce the practices of euthanasia. Practitioner’s moral or religious values are generally regarded as valuable rationales to object such practices as euthanasia (Nunes & Rego, p.
Harper Lee argues in her novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, that the moral obligations of a court are thrown aside in favor of the law that lies in the minds of men. She describes her characters in such a manner that alludes to their inner thoughts. Through practiced repetition, the citizens of Maycomb force the existence of the social inequality that is white supremacy. Whether by following lead or by ignoring the problem altogether, it is the people alone who allow injustices to occur. In a public appeal for an era of tolerance, Harper Lee attacks Southern racism through Scout Finch's narration of her father's failure to correct a corrupt legal system dominated by prejudiced citizens seeking to rule the law by their own hands.
Tajifel, H. a. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/258189
Doctors become very powerful, when they can perform euthanasia on patients. In the Netherlands, there are a reported 4,000 cases of involuntary euthanasia, since 2012. This is disheartening because it is legal in this country. There are 900 cases a year reportedly in the United
“Michael Manning, MD, in his 1998 book Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Killing or Caring?, traced the history of the word euthanasia: ‘The term euthanasia.originally meant only 'good death,'but in modern society it has come to mean a death free of any anxiety and pain, often brought about through the use of medication.” It seems there has always been some confusion and questions from our society about the legal and moral questions regarding the new science of euthanasia. “Most recently, it has come to mean'mercy killing' — deliberately putting an end to someone’s life in order to spare the individual’s suffering.’” I would like to emphasize the words “to spare the individual’s suffering”.
The protection of life has been a foundation for many laws and social mores and legalizing euthanasia cheapens that protection. A recent challenge to this idea came in a London lawsuit when two severely disabled men claimed their protected human rights were violated because they could not choose how and when to die. The British Court ruled that while the current laws did not support the rights the men claimed, “the ban on euthanasia is justified” (Cheng 1). In this lawsuit, the right to live won above the so-called right to die because a law that was enacted by the people of Britain was protected. Had the case won, the laws that British voters approved to protect life, would have been cast away. Similarly in the United States, many bills to promote euthanasia have died once voters were informed of the debate. Initiative 119, which would have legalized euthanasia in Washington in 1991, at first show...
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations, Medical practioners should be allowed to help patients actively determine the time and circumstances of their death” (Lee). “Arguments for and against assisted suicide (sometimes called the “right to die” debate) are complicated by the fact that they come from very many different points of view: medical issues, ethical issues, legal issues, religious issues, and social issues all play a part in shaping people’s opinions on the subject” (Lee). Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is considered murder, it goes against physicians’ Hippocratic Oath, violates the Controlled
The social identity theory is a person’s sense of who they are based on their social
Throughout society there are a lot of identities one might categorize themselves within; based on knowledge and opinions and fundamentally a way of life. The Social Identity theory, proposed by Henry Tajfel in the 1970’s is designed to explain and help aid in the understanding of how it is one might develop a connection and belonging to particular groups within society; but more importantly providing an understanding as to how the mechanics of discrimination regarding other groups work.
The ethical debate regarding euthanasia dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. It was the Hippocratic School (c. 400B.C.) that eliminated the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate for a doctor? More so, euthanasia raises the argument of the different ideas that people have about the value of the human experience.