Eutanasia en Chile: una discusión pendiente / Euthanasia in Chile

Euthanasia is a complex medical procedure. Even though end of life decisions are common situations in health practice, there is a lack of consensus about their terminology. In this manuscript, the main concepts about this issue are defined and delimited; including active and passive euthanasia and limitation of therapeutic effort. Then, a revision is made about the international experience on euthanasia, to then go through the Chile’s history in euthanasia and the population’s opinion. In Chile, euthanasia is an act that has been removed from the social dialogue and legislation. In order to have an open discussion in our population about the issue, the debate has to be opened to the citizens, accompanied by clear medical information about the procedure.

[Passive euthanasia and living will]. / Passzív eutanázia és végakarat.

This article deals with the intentional distinction between murder of first degree and passive euthanasia. In Hungary, active euthanasia is considered to be a murder of first degree, whilst the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg and Switzerland have legalized the active form of mercy killing in Europe. The palliative terminal care, when e.g. giving pain-killer morphine to the patient, might result in decreasing the patient's life-span, and thus causing indirect euthanasia. However, the legal institution of living will exists in several counter-euthanasia countries. The living will allows future patients to express their decision in advance to refuse a life-sustaining treatment, e.g. in case of irreversible coma. The institution of living will exists in Germany and in Hungary too. Nevertheless, the formal criteria of living will make it hardly applicable. The patient ought to express his/her will before a notary public in advance, and he/she should hand it over when being hospitalized. If the patient is not able to present his/her living will to his/her doctor in the hospital, then his/her only hope remains that he/she has given a copy of the living will to the family doctor previously, and the family doctor will notify the hospital.

Withholding or withdrawing treatment and palliative treatment hastening death: the real reason why doctors are not held legally liable for murder.

Doctors who hasten the termination of the lives of their patients by withholding or withdrawing treatment or prescribing a potentially fatal palliative dose of medication satisfy the elements of intention and causation of a charge of murder against them. However, the courts have held that, for policy reasons based on 'society's legal convictions', such conduct is not unlawful if the patient consented to it or medical treatment would be futile or palliative treatment may hasten death. Doctors are not held liable for murder because society regards their omissions or acts as lawful--not because they did not have the intention in law to kill or did not cause the death of their patients.

Judging the quality of mercy: drawing a line between palliation and euthanasia.

Clinicians frequently worry that medications used to treat pain and suffering at the end of life might also hasten death. Intentionally hastening death, or euthanasia, is neither legal nor ethically appropriate in children. In this article, we explore some of the historical and legal background regarding appropriate end-of-life care and outline what distinguishes it from euthanasia. Good principles include clarity of goals and assessments, titration of medications to effect, and open communication. When used appropriately, medications to treat symptoms should rarely hasten death significantly. Medications and interventions that are not justifiable are also discussed, as are the implications of palliative sedation and withholding fluids or nutrition. It is imperative that clinicians know how to justify and use such medications to adequately treat suffering at the end of life within a relevant clinical and legal framework.

Israeli Dying Patient Act: physician knowledge and attitudes.

OBJECTIVES: The recently enacted Israeli Dying Patient Act was designed to strike balance between enhancing patient autonomy in end-of-life decision making and cultural/religious norms that are in opposition to active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS). The current study evaluated physician attitudes regarding active and passive euthanasia, and their knowledge of specific aspects of the law. METHODS: A survey was administered to a convenience sample of hospital-based physicians treating terminal patients. Physicians were queried about their attitudes regarding euthanasia and PAS. Physicians were also queried about specific aspects of the law and whether they had sufficient resources to uphold the law. RESULTS: Surveys were distributed to 270 physicians and 100 were returned and evaluated (37%). Nearly all physicians supported passive euthanasia (withholding treatment), whereas over 40% maintained that active forms of euthanasia should be allowed for terminal patients in severe physical pain. Multivariate analysis showed a negative relationship between support for more active forms of euthanasia and physicians' self-reported religiosity. Physicians cited lack of time as a reason for not complying with the new law. Physicians had a familiarity with the general aspects of the new legislation, but a large proportion was not aware of the specifics of the law. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with previous surveys, a larger number of physicians support passive euthanasia. A sizable percentage of physicians would be willing to participate in active euthanasia and even PAS. Attitudes toward euthanasia are influenced by religious factors.

Euthanasia and end-of-life practices in France and Germany. A comparative study.

The objective of this paper is to understand from a sociological perspective how the moral question of euthanasia, framed as the "right to die", emerges and is dealt with in society. It takes France and Germany as case studies, two countries in which euthanasia is prohibited and which have similar legislation on the issue. I presuppose that, and explore how, each society has its own specificities in terms of practical, social and political norms that affect the ways in which they deal with these issues. The paper thus seeks to understand how requests for the "right to die" emerge in each society, through both the debate (analysis of daily newspapers, medical and philosophical literature, legal texts) and the practices (ethnographic work in three French and two German hospitals) that elucidate the phenomenon. It does so, however, without attempting to solve the moral question of euthanasia. In spite of the differences observed between these two countries, the central issue at stake in their respective debates is the question of the individual's autonomy to choose the conditions in which he or she wishes to die; these conditions depend, amongst others, on the doctor-patient relationship, the organisation of end-of-life care in hospital settings, and more generally, on the way autonomy is defined and handled in the public debate.

[Death with dignity - dignity life. A debate]. / Muerte Digna - Vida Digna. Una Reflexión - Un Debate.

Since 2010 in the Autonomous Community of Andalusia passed into law ″derechos y garantías de la dignidad de las personas en el proceso de muerte″. At national level, in Spain, it's disputed the need to legalize this delicate aspect therefore already been made some projects for legalization. This advised to review the pros and cons of some legislative implementation experiences and case mix in countries where it has already occurred. This paper undertakes the study of the implementation of the Death with Dignity Act in Oregon and highlight is what were the immediate consequences and risks that has produced a law of this nature.

[End of life in France]. / La fin de vie en France.

Two major changes in end-of-life management have occured in recent decades: first, because of the increase in life expectancy and the resulting aging of the population, most deaths now involve old or very old people; second, more than two-thirds of deaths occur in a hospital or an institution. Our fellow citizens are afraid of suffering and death. They wish for a peaceful death, as rapid as possible and, in recent surveys, say they favour euthanasia. Yet euthanasia is illegal in France and in most other Western countries (with the exception of the Benelux nations). Palliative care ensures dignity in death, without anxiety of suffering, and is expanding rapidly in France. Léonetti's law of 22 April 2005 ensures the protection of the weakest, who should never be considered unworthy of life, yet is poorly known to the public and even to physicians. It now needs to be applied in practice.