Search

Laws against wrongdoing may originate in justice intuitions that are part of universal human nature, according to the adaptationist theory of the origins of criminal law. This theory proposes that laws can be traced to neurocognitive mechanisms and ancestral selection pressures. According to this theory, laypeople can intuitively recreate the laws of familiar and unfamiliar cultures, even when they lack the relevant explicit knowledge. Here, to evaluate this prediction, we conduct experiments with Chinese and Sumerian laws that are millennia old; stimuli that preserve in fossil-like form the legal thinking of ancient lawmakers. We show that laypeople's justice intuitions closely match the logic and content of those archaic laws. We also show covariation across different types of justice intuitions: interpersonal devaluation of offenders, judgements of moral wrongness, mock-legislated punishments and perpetrator shame-suggesting that multiple justice intuitions may be regulated by a common social-evaluative psychology. Although alternative explanations of these findings are possible, we argue that they are consistent with the assumption that the origin of criminal law is a cognitively sophisticated human nature.

The arguments for and against euthanasia present a complex picture that will need to be discussed and decided in Mexico. This article addresses some relevant aspects such as the legal determination of death, the field of bioethics intervention, terminology related to euthanasia, its classifications, international instruments promoting human rights, as well as reflections on the importance of palliative care and the patient's right to be in a terminal situation to act in accordance with their goals, expectations and beliefs, in the context of their family and social relationships., (Copyright: © 2020 Permanyer.)

In the early 20th century, a political movement to secure access to euthanasia and assisted suicide began in the United States. The multitude of organizations associated with this effort has undergone an array of mergers, splits, and name changes, channeled through two progenitor organizations-the Euthanasia Society of America and the Hemlock Society. A few chronologies mapping the metamorphoses of these organizations are available, but they are not accessible in the medical literature. Moreover, they are not comprehensive, lack consistency, and are not rigorously validated. As debates about the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide continue, it is important to have a common understanding of the history behind these developments, including recognition of the factors driving these adaptations. In this paper, we offer a comprehensive and definitive history to aid those interested in knowing the roots of these organizations and those that are still active today.

Importance: The increasing legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide worldwide makes it important to understand related attitudes and practices., Objective: To review the legal status of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and the available data on attitudes and practices., Evidence Review: Polling data and published surveys of the public and physicians, official state and country databases, interview studies with physicians, and death certificate studies (the Netherlands and Belgium) were reviewed for the period 1947 to 2016., Findings: Currently, euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide can be legally practiced in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Colombia, and Canada (Quebec since 2014, nationally as of June 2016). Physician-assisted suicide, excluding euthanasia, is legal in 5 US states (Oregon, Washington, Montana, Vermont, and California) and Switzerland. Public support for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the United States has plateaued since the 1990s (range, 47%-69%). In Western Europe, an increasing and strong public support for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has been reported; in Central and Eastern Europe, support is decreasing. In the United States, less than 20% of physicians report having received requests for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, and 5% or less have complied. In Oregon and Washington state, less than 1% of licensed physicians write prescriptions for physician-assisted suicide per year. In the Netherlands and Belgium, about half or more of physicians reported ever having received a request; 60% of Dutch physicians have ever granted such requests. Between 0.3% to 4.6% of all deaths are reported as euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide in jurisdictions where they are legal. The frequency of these deaths increased after legalization. More than 70% of cases involved patients with cancer. Typical patients are older, white, and well-educated. Pain is mostly not reported as the primary motivation. A large portion of patients receiving physician-assisted suicide in Oregon and Washington reported being enrolled in hospice or palliative care, as did patients in Belgium. In no jurisdiction was there evidence that vulnerable patients have been receiving euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide at rates higher than those in the general population., Conclusions and Relevance: Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are increasingly being legalized, remain relatively rare, and primarily involve patients with cancer. Existing data do not indicate widespread abuse of these practices.

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.

The Internet provides an infinite platform for the portrayal of lethal events. Beyond mere display, however, it dispenses information, allows for participation and sharing of content, and constitutes a virtual interactive forum. The Internet may ultimately shape society's approach to perceiving and dealing with death. Thus, psychiatrists may wish to be aware of these matters so that they may be considered in assessments and clinical care. In this article, the author attempts to identify key online locations where lethality is portrayed and how it may affect the individual patient and practitioner and the population at large.

Since the beginning of the hospice movement in 1967, "total pain management" has been the declared goal of hospice care. Palliating the whole person's physical, psychosocial, and spiritual states or conditions is central to managing the pain that induces suffering. At the end-stage of life, an inextricable component of the ethics of adjusted care requires recognition of a fundamental right to avoid cruel and unusual suffering from terminal illness. This Article urges wider consideration and use of terminal sedation, or sedation until death, as an efficacious palliative treatment and as a reasonable medical procedure in order to safeguard the "right" to a dignified death. Once the state establishes a human right to avoid refractory pain of whatever nature in end-stage illness, a coordinate responsibility must be assumed by health care providers to make medical judgments consistent with preserving the best interests of a patient's quality of life by alleviating suffering. The principle of medical futility is the preferred construct for implementing this professional responsibility. Rather than continue to be mired in the vexatious quagmire of the doctrine of double effect--all in an effort to "test" whether end-stage decisions by health care providers are licit or illicit--a relatively simple test of proportionality, or cost-benefit analysis, is proffered. Imbedded, necessarily, in this equation is the humane virtue of compassion, charity, mercy or agape. Assertions of state interest in safeguarding public morality by restricting intimate associational freedoms to accelerate death in a terminal illness are suspicious, if, indeed, not invalid. No terminally ill individual suffering from either intractable somatic or non-somatic pain, or both, should be forced to continue living.

The issue of assisted dying in the UK is increasingly receiving media and academic journal attention. Such reporting often cites, but in little depth, existing legislation in other countries. Such international legislation may also shape future UK assisted dying legislation.

It has now been ten years since the Supreme Court handed down Glucksberg and Quill, rulings on laws that forbid "assisted suicide." In that time, normative and legal developments in the fields of law, medicine, and psychology have changed the landscape of the discourse on the choice of a mentally competent, terminally ill individual to choose to self-administer medications to bring about a peaceful death. Although the Court rejected petitioners' claims that state laws denying them the ability to end their terminal illnesses through self-administered medication violated the Constitution, it left states with the opportunity to experiment with legislation that would allow terminally ill individuals the choices they had previously sought through litigation. Oregon's experience with its Death with Dignity Act, which grants terminally ill, mentally competent individuals the choice to end their lives through self-administered medication, has proven that such laws provide comfort not only to those who, faced with the prospect of a horrible death from a terminal illness, choose to end their lives in a peaceful and dignified manner, but also to those to ultimately choose not to. Additionally, Oregon's experience shows that the fears that originally attended the "assisted suicide" debate are unfounded so long as proper procedures are in place. Because Oregon's Death with Dignity Act has proven both useful and harmless, this Article concludes that it is time for other states to follow Oregon's lead and enact their own legislation to allow their citizens an alternative to what otherwise could be a prolonged and painful death from terminal illness.

During the clinical evolution of patients with cancer there are many occasions, or phases of the disease, when there are no specific treatments and, as such, we need to provide maximum comfort following appropriate symptom control; in this stage it is fundamental to respect personal autonomy together with the option to reject futile treatment. With appropriate control of symptoms it is possible to reach the stage where the majority of the patients do not continue to suffer. Continuous-care providers for cancer patients are those who are responsible for providing help to resolve these situations. In palliative medicine there are highly-efficacious procedures to the help in these last hours. Sedation is applied when it is impossible to control symptoms by other means. With appropriate Carer cover, it is not necessary to introduce laws on assisted suicide and/or active voluntary euthanasia, neither because of the magnitude of demand, nor because of the difficulties in achieving appropriate control of symptoms.

It seems generally correct that patients (or their valid surrogates) should be able to withdraw consent for the use of the total artificial heart (TAH) just as they presently may withdraw consent for other life-prolonging technologies such as the ventilator, but lingering moral problems remain with such decisions. First, should patients be permitted to demand actual removal of the TAH rather than mere deactivation? Second, foregoing other life-prolonging technologies is normally considered "indirect" killing and is therefore judged legal (as well as moral to those who accept only indirect killing). As long as the society includes irreversible stoppage of the heart as one of the criteria for death, however, stopping a TAH will be considered direct killing, i.e., murder. To circumvent this inconsistency, society must change its conclusion that stopping other life-prolonging technologies is merely indirect killing, explicitly legalize direct killing by means of stopping a TAH, or revisit the definition of death to eliminate the cardiac standard for death from the definition of death. Assuming that the stopping of the TAH with patient or surrogate consent is acceptable, we must then face the question of whether physicians who believe the TAH is serving no purpose can unilaterally stop the device against the wishes of a patient or surrogate who believes it is still serving a worthwhile purpose. Clinicians should be presumed authoritative in determining the predicted effect of the TAH, but, if the TAH can temporarily prolong life for a patient in a way that is desired by the patient or surrogate, case law, professional society recommendation, and moral analysis all support the conclusion that the TAH must be continued even against the conscientious objection of the physician

This longitudinal study investigated whether attitudes toward physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia (E) are stable among patients with noncurable malignancy, and whether depression and various coping strategies were related to such attitudes. Thirty patients with noncurable malignancies completed questionnaires measuring attitudes toward PAS and E, depression, and coping. Three months later, and subsequently at six-month intervals, repeated measures were obtained from 24 patients. There was a trend for patients to become less supportive of legalizing PAS and E from the initial to last attitude measurement. Depression was unrelated to attitude change. There were significant changes on two coping dimensions: use of social support for emotional reasons and use of religious resources. Our findings should be considered in clinical, legislative, and ethical debates.

In this article, the rise of hospice in the United States is examined and some of its important strengths and weaknesses are described. It is suggested that, despite the tendency to believe otherwise, hospice is not immune to a kind of alienation between patients and clinicians based on the absorption of doctors with biomedical conditions and their possible technological remedies, thus overlooking or ignoring the patient's good. To protect the age-old fiduciary or "trust" relationship between patients and clinicians requires a re-adjustment of current attitudes and practices--not just in the current cure-oriented health care of conventional medicine, but in the palliation-oriented health care of hospice as well. That is, it requires the development of attitudes and practices that foster a democratic, multidisciplinary process of shared decision-making and the adoption of a genuinely bio/psycho/social understanding and articulation of "the patient's good"--irrespective of where along the continuum of care patients and clinicians find themselves (5, 13).

Americans' moral acceptance of doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia is on the rise, as is their belief that the practices should be legal.

Physician-assisted suicide is a controversial practice that is gaining favor in some segments of today's society. I will analyze the proponents' arguments for physician-assisted suicide and discuss why I believe this is a practice that physicians should shun.