World Journal of Pharmaceutical
and Medical Research

( An ISO 9001:2015 Certified International Journal )

An International Peer Reviewed Journal for Pharmaceutical and Medical Research and Technology
An Official Publication of Society for Advance Healthcare Research (Reg. No. : 01/01/01/31674/16)
ISSN 2455-3301
IMPACT FACTOR: 6.842

ICV : 78.6

World Journal of Pharmaceutical and Medical Research (WJPMR) has indexed with various reputed international bodies like : Google Scholar , Index Copernicus , SOCOLAR, China , Indian Science Publications , Cosmos Impact Factor , Research Bible, Fuchu, Tokyo. JAPAN , Scientific Indexing Services (SIS) , UDLedge Science Citation Index , International Impact Factor Services , International Society for Research Activity (ISRA) Journal Impact Factor (JIF) , International Innovative Journal Impact Factor (IIJIF) , Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF) , Global Impact Factor (In Process) , Digital Online Identifier-Database System (DOI-DS) , Science Library Index, Dubai, United Arab Emirates , Eurasian Scientific Journal Index (ESJI) , International Scientific Indexing, (ISI) UAE , IFSIJ Measure of Journal Quality , Web of Science Group (Under Process) , Directory of Research Journals Indexing , Scholar Article Journal Index (SAJI) , International Scientific Indexing ( ISI ) , Scope Database , Academia , 

Abstract

EUTHANASIA: THE SILENT REQUEST FOR BECOMING REST IN PEACE

*Dr. Kishor Dholwani, Kushal Nandi, Amrita Chakraborty, Dr. Dhrubo Jyoti Sen and Dr. Dhananjoy Saha

ABSTRACT

Like other terms borrowed from history, "euthanasia" has had different meanings depending on usage. The first apparent usage of the term "euthanasia" belongs to the historian Suetonius, who described how the Emperor Augustus, "dying quickly and without suffering in the arms of his wife, Livia, experienced the 'euthanasia' he had wished for." The word "euthanasia" was first used in a medical context by Francis Bacon in the 17th century, to refer to an easy, painless, happy death, during which it was a "physician's responsibility to alleviate the 'physical sufferings' of the body." Bacon referred to an "outward euthanasia"—the term "outward" he used to distinguish from a spiritual concept—the euthanasia "which regards the preparation of the soul." In current usage, euthanasia has been defined as the "painless inducement of a quick death". However, it is argued that this approach fails to properly define euthanasia, as it leaves open a number of possible actions which would meet the requirements of the definition, but would not be seen as euthanasia. In particular, these include situations where a person kills another, painlessly, but for no reason beyond that of personal gain; or accidental deaths that are quick and painless, but not intentional. Another approach incorporates the notion of suffering into the definition. The definition offered by the Oxford English Dictionary incorporates suffering as a necessary condition, with "the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma", This approach is included in Marvin Khol and Paul Kurtz's definition of it as "a mode or act of inducing or permitting death painlessly as a relief from suffering". Counterexamples can be given: such definitions may encompass killing a person suffering from an incurable disease for personal gain (such as to claim an inheritance), and commentators such as Tom Beauchamp and Arnold Davidson have argued that doing so would constitute "murder simpliciter" rather than euthanasia. The third element incorporated into many definitions is that of intentionality – the death must be intended, rather than being accidental, and the intent of the action must be a "merciful death?. Michael Wreen argued that "the principal thing that distinguishes euthanasia from intentional killing simpliciter is the agent's motive: it must be a good motive insofar as the good of the person killed is concerned." Likewise, James Field argued that euthanasia entails a sense of compassion towards the patient, in contrast to the diverse non-compassionate motives of serial killers who work in health care professions. Similarly, Heather Draper speaks to the importance of motive, arguing that "the motive forms a crucial part of arguments for euthanasia, because it must be in the best interests of the person on the receiving end." Definitions such as that offered by the House of Lords Select committee on Medical Ethics take this path, where euthanasia is defined as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering." Beauchamp and Davidson also highlight Baruch Brody's "an act of euthanasia is one in which one person ... (A) kills another person (B) for the benefit of the second person, who actually does benefit from being killed". Draper argued that any definition of euthanasia must incorporate four elements: an agent and a subject; an intention; a causal proximity, such that the actions of the agent lead to the outcome; and an outcome. Based on this, she offered a definition incorporating those elements, stating that euthanasia "must be defined as death that results from the intention of one person to kill another person, using the most gentle and painless means possible, that is motivated solely by the best interests of the person who dies." Prior to Draper, Beauchamp and Davidson had also offered a definition that includes these elements. Their definition specifically discounts fetuses to distinguish between abortions and euthanasia.

[Full Text Article]    [Download Certificate]

Powered By WJPMR | All Right Reserved

WJPMR