The moral values and religious principles not embraced by a particular patient must no bar his

rights as to escape from pain

Jehovah witness

- There can be no ultimate cure for human disease in this flawed world.
Therefore. They reject prolongation of life & interventions that may shorten life

Because

 UDHR ART 18-Everyone has the freedom to adopt a particular thought & conscience
especially on how to live their life without any interference
 Issue: Whether the right to freedom of thought & conscience implies the right to put an end
to one’s own life?
 We believe this right covers patient’s voluntary right to passive euthanasia:
I. Broadly consistent with human rights standards as itd oes not involve element of
murder
II. Treatment are no longer benefits to patients, this will only incurred more unnessary
cost to dying patients.
II.
III. Allow nature to take its own course

 Must be regulated

http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/172264/9/09_chapter%203.pdf

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/2016_AHRC_euthanasia
_human_rights_law.pdf
 Euthanasia is a wide topic with many dimensions. I will limit myself in this article to the
issue of assisted death, which seems to me to be one of the most pressing issues of our time.
any form of treatment that might extend a person's life is withdrawn, eg a life support
machine is turned off, or a feeding tube is removed.

 Refusing treatment - in the UK all adults have the right to refuse treatment
as long as they have the capacity to understand the situation they are in and to
make an informed decision.


The right to commit suicide is, as far as I am concerned, simply one of the prices we have to
be willing to pay as citizens of a democracy.
You may want to exercise a right to die, but you cannot ask a physician, whose duty is to
heal, to comply with your wishes or even to make a referral. No person, in the name of self-
determination, can oblige a doctor to inject him with orphenadrine when it goes against the
physician’s oath to heal.”

Personal autonomy is, at minimum, self-rule that is free from both controlling interference by others
and from limitations, such as inadequate understanding, that prevent meaningful choice.

According to this kind of conception, a person’s beliefs, desires, choices, decisions, etc. are
autonomous when they fulfil certain procedural criteria. As the above quotation suggests, there can
be different views about exactly how these criteria should be formulated.

Finally, proponents argue that forcing people to live against their wishes violates personal freedoms
and human rights and that it is immoral to compel people to continue to live with unbearable pain
and suffering

Proponents of euthanasia argue that the

decision to end a life of pain and suffering is an

expression of one’s right to personal autonomy, which

should be respected by one’s family, healthcare providers

and society at large

Opponents have raised concerns about the implications

legalising euthanasia would have for society. They state

that governments have a duty to protect society as a

whole, as opposed to individual citizens and that

allowing euthanasia could harm society. Therefore, they

argue that governments should balance an individual’s

right to die against potential negative consequences for

the wider community/On the other hand, proponents

argue that society is made up of individual citizens,

whose rights should be protected and that if

euthanasia is properly regulated then the rights of

society would not be harmed.

the right to die was framed more as a right to refuse life-prolonging

“treatment” than as a right to die.