Islam and medical ethics

Islam considers medical ethics the same as ethics in other areas of life. Islamic medical ethics
is restating general ethical principles using medical terminology and with medical
applications.
Modern medicine has caused some ethical dilemmas in relation to end-of-life decisions and
what is or is not euthanasia.

Euthanasia and suicide in Islam

Muslims are against euthanasia. They believe that all human life is sacred because it is given
by Allah, and that Allah chooses how long each person will live. Human beings should not
interfere in this.

Life is sacred
Euthanasia and suicide are not included among the reasons allowed for killing in Islam.
Do not take life, which Allah made sacred, other than in the course of justice.
Qur'an 17:33

Allah decides how long each of us will live

When their time comes they cannot delay it for a single hour nor can they bring it forward by
a single hour.
Qur'an 16:61
And no person can ever die except by Allah's leave and at an appointed term.
Qur'an 3:145
Suicide and euthanasia are explicitly forbidden

Destroy not yourselves. Surely Allah is ever merciful to you.

Qur'an 4:29
The Prophet said: "Amongst the nations before you there was a man who got a wound, and
growing impatient (with its pain), he took a knife and cut his hand with it and the blood did
not stop till he died. Allah said, 'My Slave hurried to bring death upon himself so I have
forbidden him (to enter) Paradise.' "
Sahih Bukhari 4.56.669

End of life decisions and DNR orders

Many devout Muslims believe that Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders represent a soft form of
euthanasia which is strictly forbidden in Islam. Muslims cannot kill, or be complicit in the
killing of another, except in the interests of justice.
However, the Islamic Code of Medical Ethics states "it is futile to diligently keep the patient
in a vegetative state by heroic means... It is the process of life that the doctor aims to maintain
and not the process of dying". This means doctors can stop trying to prolong life in cases
where there is no hope of a cure.
According to the Islamic Medical Association of America (IMANA
"When death becomes inevitable, as determined by physicians taking care of terminally ill
patients, the patient should be allowed to die without unnecessary procedures."
IMANA say that turning off life support for patients deemed to be in a persistent vegetative
state is permissible. This is because they consider all mechanical life support procedures as
temporary measures.
While turning off a life-support is allowed, hastening death with the use of certain painkilling drugs is not allowed as this would equate to euthanasia.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/euthanasia.shtml

General Christian view

Christians are mostly against euthanasia. The arguments are usually based on the beliefs that
life is given by God, and that human beings are made in God's image. Some churches also
emphasise the importance of not interfering with the natural process of death.

Life is a gift from God

all life is God-given

birth and death are part of the life processes which God has created, so we should
respect them

therefore no human being has the authority to take the life of any innocent person,
even if that person wants to die

Human beings are valuable because they are made in God's image

human life possesses an intrinsic dignity and value because it is created by God in his
own image for the distinctive destiny of sharing in God's own life

o saying that God created humankind in his own image doesn't mean that people
actually look like God, but that people have a unique capacity for rational
existence that enables them to see what is good and to want what is good
o as people develop these abilities they live a life that is as close as possible to
God's life of love
o this is a good thing, and life should be preserved so that people can go on
doing this

to propose euthanasia for an individual is to judge that the current life of that
individual is not worthwhile

such a judgement is incompatible with recognising the worth and dignity of the
person to be killed

therefore arguements based on the quality of life are completely irrelevant

nor should anyone ask for euthanasia for themselves because no-one has the right to
value anyone, even themselves, as worthless

The process of dying is spiritually important, and should not be disrupted

Many churches believe that the period just before death is a profoundly spiritual time

They think it is wrong to interfere with the process of dying, as this would interrupt
the process of the spirit moving towards God

All human lives are equally valuable

Christians believe that the intrinsic dignity and value of human lives means that the value of
each human life is identical. They don't think that human dignity and value are measured by
mobility, intelligence, or any achievements in life.
Valuing human beings as equal just because they are human beings has clear implications for
thinking about euthanasia:

patients in a persistent vegetative state, although seriously damaged, remain living

human beings, and so their intrinsic value remains the same as anyone else's

so it would be wrong to treat their lives as worthless and to conclude that they 'would
be better off dead'

patients who are old or sick, and who are near the end of earthly life have the same
value as any other human being

people who have mental or physical handicaps have the same value as any other
human being

Exceptions and omissions

Some features of Christianity suggest that there are some obligations that go against the
general view that euthanasia is a bad thing:

Christianity requires us to respect every human being

If we respect a person we should respect their decisions about the end of their life

We should accept their rational decisions to refuse burdensome and futile treatment

Perhaps we should accept their rational decision to refuse excessively burdensome

treatment even if it may provide several weeks more of life

End of life care

The Christian faith leads those who follow it to some clear-cut views about the way
terminally ill patients should be treated:

the community should care for people who are dying, and for those who are close to
them

the community should provide the best possible palliative care

the community should face death and dying with honesty and support

the community should recognise that when people suffer death on earth they entrust
their future to the risen Christ

religious people, both lay and professional, should help the terminally ill to prepare
for death

they should be open to their hopes and fears

they should be open to discussion

Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide (dying) , doctorassisted dying (suicide) , and more loosely termed mercy killing, basically means to take a
deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable (persistent,
unstoppable) suffering. Some interpret euthanasia as the practice of ending a life in a painless
manner. Many disagree with this interpretation, because it needs to include a reference to
intractable suffering.
In the majority of countries euthanasia or assisted suicide is against the law. According to the
National Health Service (NHS), UK, it is illegal to help somebody kill themselves, regardless

of circumstances. Assisted suicide, or voluntary euthanasia carries a maximum sentence of

14 years in prison in the UK. In the USA the law varies in some states (see further down).
There are two main classifications of euthanasia:

Voluntary euthanasia - this is euthanasia conducted with consent. Since 2009

voluntary euthanasia has been legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands,
Switzerland, and the states of Oregon (USA) and Washington (USA).

Involuntary euthanasia - euthanasia is conducted without consent. The decision is

made by another person because the patient is incapable to doing so himself/herself.

There are two procedural classifications of euthanasia:

Passive euthanasia - this is when life-sustaining treatments are withheld. The

definition of passive euthanasia is often not clear cut. For example, if a doctor
prescribes increasing doses of opioid analgesia (strong painkilling medications) which
may eventually be toxic for the patient, some may argue whether passive euthanasia is
taking place - in most cases, the doctor's measure is seen as a passive one. Many
claim that the term is wrong, because euthanasia has not taken place, because there is
no intention to take life.

Active euthanasia - lethal substances or forces are used to end the patient's life.
Active euthanasia includes life-ending actions conducted by the patient or somebody
else.

Active euthanasia is a much more controversial subject than passive euthanasia. Individuals
are torn by religious, moral, ethical and compassionate arguments surrounding the issue.
Euthanasia has been a very controversial and emotive topic for a long time.
The term assisted suicide has several different interpretations. Perhaps the most widely used
and accepted is "the intentional hastening of death by a terminally ill patient with assistance
from a doctor, relative, or another person". Some people will insist that something along the
lines of "in order relieve intractable (persistent, unstoppable) suffering" needs to be added to
the meaning, while others insist that "terminally ill patient" already includes that meaning.

Euthanasia in history
The English medical word "euthanasia" comes from the Greek word eu meaning "good", and
the Greek word thanatos meaning "death".

Hippocrates (ca. 460 BC - ca. 370 BC) - euthanasia is mentioned in the Hippocratic
Oath. The original oath states "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor
give advice which may cause his death." Even so, the ancient Greeks and Romans
were not strong advocates of preserving life at any cost, and were tolerant of suicide
when no relief could be offered to the dying.

English Common Law - suicide was a criminal act from the 1300s until the middle
of the last century; this included assisting others to end their lives.

Thomas More (1478-1535) - an English lawyer, scholar, author and statesman; also
recognized as a saint within the Catholic Church, once envisaged a utopian
community as one that would facilitate the death of those whose lives had become
burdensome as a result of torturing and lingering pain.

Since early 1800s - Since the early 1800s euthanasia has been a topic of debates and
activism in the USA, Canada, Western Europe and Australasia. Ezekiel Emanuel
(born 1957, USA), an American National Institutes of Health bioethicist said that the
modern era of euthanasia was ushered in by the availability of anesthesia.

New York 1828 - an anti-euthanasia law was passed in the state of New York in 1828.
It is the first known anti-euthanasia law in the USA. In subsequent years many other
localities and states followed suit with similar laws. Several advocates, including
doctors promoted euthanasia after the American Civil War. At the beginning of the
1900s support for euthanasia peaked in the USA, and then rose up again during the
1930s.

Societies - in 1935 euthanasia societies emerged in England, and in 1938 in the USA.

Swiss legislation - doctor assisted suicide became legalized in Switzerland in 1937, as

long as the doctor ending the patient's life had nothing to gain.

After WWII - after the Second World War Glanville Williams (1911-1997, Wales. A
legal professor) and Joseph Fletcher (1905-1991, USA. An Episcopal priest, he later
identified himself as an atheist) emerged as proponents of euthanasia.

1960s - During the 1960s advocacy for a right-to-die approach to euthanasia grew.

Australia - Rights of the Terminally Ill Act was passed in 1996 in the Northern
Territory. Under the Act four patients died using a euthanasia device designed by Dr.
Philip Nitschke. One year later the Act was overturned by the Federal Parliament. Dr.
Nitschke responded by founding EXIT International, a pro-euthanasia group. In 2009
a quadriplegic patient, Christian Rossiter (49) was granted the right to refuse
nourishment and be allowed to die; Chief Justice Wayne Martin specified that
Brightwater, his caregiver, would not be held criminally responsible for following his
instructions. A chest infection eventually ended Rossiter's life.

UK - euthanasia is illegal in the whole of the United Kingdom (England, Wales,

Northern Ireland and Scotland). However, as the matter is now under the Scottish
parliament in Scotland, it is possible that varying laws may eventually apply in future
within the UK.

Arguments for voluntary euthanasia:

Choice - freedom of choice is the cornerstone of free market systems and liberal
democracies. The patient should be given the option to make their own choice.

Quality of life - only the patient is really aware of what it is like to experience
intractable (persistent, unstoppable) suffering; even with pain relievers. Those who
have not experienced it cannot fully appreciate what effect it has on quality of life.
Apart from physical pain, overcoming the emotional pain of losing independence is
an additional factor that only the patient comprehends fully.

Dignity - every individual should be given the ability to die with dignity.

Witnesses - people who witness the slow death of others are especially convinced that
the law should be altered so that assisted death be allowed.

Drain on resources - in virtually every country there is never enough hospital space.
Channeling the resources of highly-skilled staff, equipment, hospital beds and
medications towards life-saving treatments makes more sense; especially when these
resources are currently spent on terminal patients with intractable suffering who wish
to die.

Public opinion - in nearly all countries a significantly higher proportion of people are
for euthanasia than against it. In a democracy legislation should reflect the will of the
people.

Humane - it is more humane to allow a person with intractable suffering to be

allowed to choose to end that suffering.

Loved ones - it helps shorten the grief and suffering of the patient's loved ones.

We already do it - if a loved pet has intractable suffering we put it down. It is seen as

an act of kindness. Why should this kindness be denied to humans?

Prolongation of dying - if the dying process is unpleasant, the patient should have
the right to reduce this unpleasantness. In medicine, the prolongation of living may
sometimes turn into the prolongation of dying. Put simply - why should be a patient
be forced to experience a slow death?

Reasons against voluntary euthanasia:

The doctor's role - doctors and other health care professionals may have their
professional roles compromised. The Hippocratic Oath, in its ancient form stated "To
please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his
death."

Moral religious argument - several religions see euthanasia as a form of murder and
morally unacceptable. At best, some see voluntary euthanasia as a form of suicide,
which goes against the teachings of many religions. Euthanasia weakens society's
respect for the sanctity of life.

Competence - euthanasia is only voluntary if the patient is mentally competent - has a

lucid understanding of available options and consequences. Determining or defining
competence is not straightforward.

Guilt - there is a risk patients may feel they are a burden on resources and are
psychologically pressured into consenting. They may feel that the burden - financially,
emotionally, mentally - on their family is overwhelming. Even if the costs of
treatment are provided by the state, there is a risk hospital personnel may have an
economic incentive to encourage euthanasia consent.

Slippery slope - there is a risk things will start with those who are terminally ill and
wish to die because of intractable suffering, and eventally begin to include other
patients.

The patient might recover - the patient might recover against all odds. The diagnosis
might be wrong.

Palliative care - good palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary.

How can you regulate it? Euthanasia cannot be properly regulated.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/182951.php

PRO Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted

Suicide

CON Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted

Suicide

1. Right to Die
PRO: "The right of a competent, terminally
ill person to avoid excruciating pain and
embrace a timely and dignified death bears
the sanction of history and is implicit in the
concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of
this right is as central to personal autonomy
and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by
this Court's decisions relating to marriage,
family relationships, procreation,
contraception, child rearing and the refusal or
termination of life-saving medical treatment.
In particular, this Court's recent decisions
concerning the right to refuse medical
treatment and the right to abortion instruct
that a mentally competent, terminally ill
person has a protected liberty interest in
choosing to end intolerable suffering by
bringing about his or her own death.

CON: "The history of the law's treatment of

assisted suicide in this country has been and
continues to be one of the rejection of nearly
all efforts to permit it. That being the case,
our decisions lead us to conclude that the
asserted 'right' to assistance in committing
suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest
protected by the Due Process Clause."
-- Washington v. Glucksberg(63 KB)
US Supreme Court Majority Opinion
June 26, 1997

A state's categorical ban on physician

assistance to suicide -- as applied to
competent, terminally ill patients who wish to
avoid unendurable pain and hasten inevitable
death -- substantially interferes with this
protected liberty interest and cannot be
sustained."
-- ACLU Amicus Brief in Vacco v. Quill(72 KB)
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Dec. 10, 1996

2. Patient Suffering at End-of-Life

PRO: "At the Hemlock Society we get calls
daily from desperate people who are looking
for someone like Jack Kevorkian to end their
lives which have lost all quality... Americans
should enjoy a right guaranteed in the
European Declaration of Human Rights -- the
right not to be forced to suffer. It should be
considered as much of a crime to make
someone live who with justification does not
wish to continue as it is to take life without
consent."

CON: "Activists often claim that laws

against euthanasia and assisted suicide are
government mandated suffering. But this
claim would be similar to saying that laws
against selling contaminated food are
government mandated starvation.
Laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide
are in place to prevent abuse and to protect
people from unscrupulous doctors and
others. They are not, and never have been,
intended to make anyone suffer."

-- Faye Girsh, EdD

Senior Adviser, Final Exit Network,
"How Shall We Die," Free Inquiry
Winter 2001
3. Slippery Slope to Legalized Murder
PRO: "Especially with regard to taking life,
slippery slope arguments have long been a
feature of the ethical landscape, used to
question the moral permissibility of all kinds
of acts... The situation is not unlike that of a
doomsday cult that predicts time and again
the end of the world, only for followers to
discover the next day that things are pretty
much as they were...

CON: "In a society as obsessed with the

costs of health care and the principle of
utility, the dangers of the slippery slope...
are far from fantasy...

Assisted suicide is a half-way house, a stop

on the way to other forms of direct
euthanasia, for example, for incompetent
patients by advance directive or suicide in
the elderly. So, too, is voluntary euthanasia a
We need the evidence that shows that horrible half-way house to involuntary and
slope consequences are likely to occur. The
nonvoluntary euthanasia. If terminating life
mere possibility that such consequences
is a benefit, the reasoning goes, why should
might occur, as noted earlier, does not
euthanasia be limited only to those who can

constitute such evidence."

-- R.G. Frey, DPhil
Professor of Philosophy, Bowling Green
State University
"The Fear of a Slippery Slope," Euthanasia
and Physician-Assisted Suicide: For and
Against
1998

give consent? Why need we ask for

consent?"
-- Edmund D. Pelligrino, MD
Professor Emeritus of Medicine and
Medical Ethics, Georgetown University
"The False Promise of Beneficent Killing,"
Regulating How We Die: The Ethical,
Medical, and Legal Issues Surrounding
Physician-Assisted Suicide
1998

4. Hippocratic Oath and Prohibition of Killing

PRO: "Over time the Hippocratic Oath has
been modified on a number of occasions as
some of its tenets became less and less
acceptable. References to women not
studying medicine and doctors not breaking
the skin have been deleted. The much-quoted
reference to 'do no harm' is also in need of
explanation. Does not doing harm mean that
we should prolong a life that the patient sees
as a painful burden? Surely, the 'harm' in this
instance is done when we prolong the life,
and 'doing no harm' means that we should
help the patient die. Killing the patient-technically, yes. Is it a good thing-sometimes, yes. Is it consistent with good
medical end-of-life care: absolutely yes."
-- Philip Nitschke, MD
Director and Founder, Exit International
"Euthanasia Sets Sail," National Review
Online
June 5, 2001

CON: "The prohibition against killing

patients... stands as the first promise of selfrestraint sworn to in the Hippocratic Oath,
as medicine's primary taboo: 'I will neither
give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for
it, nor will I make a suggestion to this
effect'... In forswearing the giving of poison
when asked for it, the Hippocratic physician
rejects the view that the patient's choice for
death can make killing him right. For the
physician, at least, human life in living
bodies commands respect and reverence--by
its very nature. As its respectability does not
depend upon human agreement or patient
consent, revocation of one's consent to live
does not deprive one's living body of
respectability. The deepest ethical principle
restraining the physician's power is not the
autonomy or freedom of the patient; neither
is it his own compassion or good intention.
Rather, it is the dignity and mysterious
power of human life itself, and therefore,
also what the Oath calls the purity and
holiness of life and art to which he has
sworn devotion."

5. Government Involvement in End-of-Life Decisions

PRO: "We'll all die. But in an age of
increased longevity and medical advances,
death can be suspended, sometimes
indefinitely, and no longer slips in according
to its own immutable timetable.

CON: "Cases like Schiavo's touch on basic

constitutional rights, such as the right to live
and the right to due process, and
consequently there could very well be a
legitimate role for the federal government to
play. There's a precedent--as a result of the
So, for both patients and their loved ones, real highly publicized deaths of infants with
decisions are demanded: When do we stop
disabilities in the 1980s, the federal

doing all that we can do? When do we

withhold which therapies and allow nature to
take its course? When are we, through our
own indecision and fears of mortality,
allowing wondrous medical methods to
perversely prolong the dying rather than the
living?
These intensely personal and socially
expensive decisions should not be left to
governments, judges or legislators better
attuned to highway funding."
-- Los Angeles Times
"Planning for Worse Than Taxes," Opinion
Mar. 22, 2005

government enacted 'Baby Doe Legislation,'

which would withhold federal funds from
hospitals that withhold lifesaving treatment
from newborns based on the expectation of
disability. The medical community has to
have restrictions on what it may do to
people with disabilities - we've already seen
what some members of that community are
willing to do when no restrictions are in
place."
-- Stephen Drake. MS
Research Analyst, Not Dead Yet
"End of Life Planning: Q & A with
Disabilities Advocate," Reno GazetteJournal
Nov. 22, 2003

6. Palliative (End-of-Life) Care

PRO: "Assisting death in no way precludes
giving the best palliative care possible but
rather integrates compassionate care and
respect for the patient's autonomy and
ultimately makes death with dignity a real
option...
The evidence for the emotional impact of
assisted dying on physicians shows that
euthanasia and assisted suicide are a far cry
from being 'easier options for the caregiver'
than palliative care, as some critics of Dutch
practice have suggested. We wish to take a
strong stand against the separation and
opposition between euthanasia and assisted
suicide, on the one hand, and palliative care,
on the other, that such critics have implied.
There is no 'either-or' with respect to these
options. Every appropriate palliative option
available must be discussed with the patient
and, if reasonable, tried before a request for
assisted death can be accepted...
Opposing euthanasia to palliative care...
neither reflects the Dutch reality that
palliative medicine is incorporated within
end-of-life care nor the place of the option of
assisted death at the request of a patient
within the overall spectrum of end-of-life

CON: "Studies show that hospice-style

palliative care 'is virtually unknown in the
Netherlands [where euthanasia is legal].'
There are very few hospice facilities, very
little in the way of organized hospice
activity, and few specialists in palliative
care, although some efforts are now under
way to try and jump-start the hospice
movement in that country...
The widespread availability of euthanasia in
the Netherlands may be another reason for
the stunted growth of the Dutch hospice
movement. As one Dutch doctor is reported
to have said, 'Why should I worry about
palliation when I have euthanasia?'"

care."
-- Gerrit Kimsma, MD, MPh
Associate Professor in Medical Philosophy
Evert van Leeuwen, PhD
Professor in Philosophy and Medical Ethics
Center for Ethics and Philosophy at Free
University in Amsterdam (Amsterdam,
Netherlands)
"Assisted Death in the Netherlands:
Physician at the Bedside When Help Is
Requested"
Physician-Assisted Dying: The Case for
Palliative Care & Patient Choice
2004
7. Healthcare Spending Implications
PRO: "Even though the various elements
that make up the American healthcare system
are becoming more circumspect in ensuring
that money is not wasted, the cap that marks
a zero-sum healthcare system is largely
absent in the United States... Considering the
way we finance healthcare in the United
States, it would be hard to make a case that
there is a financial imperative compelling us
to adopt physician-assisted suicide in an
effort to save money so that others could
benefit..."

CON: "Savings to governments could

become a consideration. Drugs for assisted
suicide cost about $35 to $45, making them
far less expensive than providing medical
care. This could fill the void from cutbacks
for treatment and care with the 'treatment' of
death."
-- International Task Force on Euthanasia
and Assisted Suicide
"Frequently Asked Questions,"
www.internationaltaskforce.org
(accessed May 27, 2010)

-- Merrill Matthews, Jr., PhD

Director, Council for Affordable Health
Insurance
"Would Physician-Assisted Suicide Save the
Healthcare System Money?," Physician
Assisted Suicide: Expanding the Debate
1998
8. Social Groups at Risk of Abuse
PRO: "One concern has been that
disadvantaged populations would be
disproportionately represented among
patients who chose assisted suicide.
Experience in Oregon suggests this has not
been the case. In the United States, socially
disadvantaged groups have variably included

CON: "It must be recognized that assisted

suicide and euthanasia will be practiced
through the prism of social inequality and
prejudice that characterizes the delivery of
services in all segments of society, including
health care. Those who will be most
vulnerable to abuse, error, or indifference

ethnic minorities, the poor, women, and the

elderly. Compared with all Oregon residents
who died between January 1998 and
December 2002, those who died by
physician-assisted suicide were more likely
to be college graduates, more likely to be
Asian, somewhat younger, more likely to be
divorced, and more likely to have cancer or
amytrophic lateral sclerosis... Moreover,
although 2.6 percent of Oregonians are
African American, no African American
patients have chosen assisted suicide."
-- Linda Ganzini, MD, MPH
Professor of Psychiatry and Medicine Senior
Scholar, Center for Ethics in Health Care at
Oregon Health & Science University
"The Oregon Experience," PhysicianAssisted Dying: The Case for Palliative Care
and Patient Choice
2004

are the poor, minorities, and those who are

least educated and least empowered. This
risk does not reflect a judgment that
physicians are more prejudiced or
influenced by race and class than the rest of
society - only that they are not exempt from
the prejudices manifest in other areas of our
collective life.
While our society aspires to eradicate
discrimination and the most punishing
effects of poverty in employment practices,
housing, education, and law enforcement,
we consistently fall short of our goals. The
costs of this failure with assisted suicide and
euthanasia would be extreme. Nor is there
any reason to believe that the practices,
whatever safeguards are erected, will be
unaffected by the broader social and medical
context in which they will be operating. This
assumption is naive and unsupportable."

9. Religious Concerns
PRO: "Guided by our belief as Unitarian
Universalists that human life has inherent
dignity, which may be compromised when
life is extended beyond the will or ability of a
person to sustain that dignity; and believing
that it is every person's inviolable right to
determine in advance the course of action to
be taken in the event that there is no
reasonable expectation of recovery from
extreme physical or mental disability...

CON: "As Catholic leaders and moral

teachers, we believe that life is the most
basic gift of a loving God- a gift over which
we have stewardship but not absolute
dominion. Our tradition, declaring a moral
obligation to care for our own life and health
and to seek such care from others,
recognizes that we are not morally obligated
to use all available medical procedures in
every set of circumstances. But that tradition
clearly and strongly affirms that as a
responsible steward of life one must never
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That
Unitarian Universalists advocate the right to directly intend to cause one's own death, or
the death of an innocent victim, by action or
self-determination in dying, and the release
from civil or criminal penalties of those who, omission...
under proper safeguards, act to honor the
right of terminally ill patients to select the
We call on Catholics, and on all persons of
time of their own deaths; and...
good will, to reject proposals to legalize
euthanasia."
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED: That
Unitarian Universalists, acting through their
-- United States Conference of Catholic
congregations, memorial societies, and
Bishops
appropriate organizations, inform and
"Statement on Euthanasia," on
petition legislators to support legislation that
www.usccb.org
will create legal protection for the right to die

with dignity, in accordance with one's own

choice.

Sep. 12, 1991

-- Unitarian Universalist Association: The

Right to Die With Dignity, 1988 General
Resolution
Unitarian Universalist Association
1988
10. Living Wills
PRO: "Living wills can be used to refuse
extraordinary, life-prolonging care and are
effective in providing clear and convincing
evidence that may be necessary under state
statutes to refuse care after one becomes
terminally ill.

CON: "Not only are we awash in evidence

that the prerequisites for a successful living
wills policy are unachievable, but there is
direct evidence that living wills regularly
fail to have their intended effect...

When we reviewed the five conditions for a

successful program of living wills, we
encountered evidence that not one condition
has been achieved or, we think, can be. First,
despite the millions of dollars lavished on
propaganda, most people do not have living
wills... Second, people who sign living wills
have generally not thought through its
instructions in a way we should want for
life-and-death decisions... Third, drafters of
A living will provides clear and convincing
living wills have failed to offer people the
evidence of one's wishes regarding end-ofmeans to articulate their preferences
life care."
accurately... Fourth, living wills too often do
not reach the people actually making
decisions for incompetent patients... Fifth,
-- Joseph Pozzuolo, JD
Professor, Neuman College living wills seem not to increase the
accuracy with which surrogates identifies
Lisa Lassoff, JD
Associate, Reed Smith patients preferences
Jamie Valentine, JD
Associate, Pozzuolo & Perkiss
"Why Living Wills/Advance Directives Are an
Essential Part of Estate Planning," Journal
of Financial Service Professionals
Sep. 2005
A recent Pennsylvania case shows the power
a living will can have. In that case, a Bucks
County man was not given a feeding tube,
even though his wife requested he receive
one, because his living will, executed seven
years prior, clearly stated that he did 'not
want tube feeding or any other artificial
invasive form of nutrition'...

Euthasol Euthanasia Solution Caution

Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.

Description

A non-sterile solution containing pentobarbital sodium and phenytoin sodium as the active
ingredients. Rhodamine B, a bluish-red fluorescent dye, is included in the formulation to help
distinguish it from parenteral drugs intended for therapeutic use. Although the solution is not
sterile, benzyl alcohol, a bacteriostat, is included to retard the growth of microorganisms.
Each mL contains: active ingredients: 390 mg pentobarbital sodium (barbituric acid
derivative), 50 mg phenytoin sodium; inactive ingredients: 10% ethyl alcohol, 18%
propylene glycol, 0.003688 mg rhodamine B, 2% benzyl alcohol (preservative), water for
injection q.s. Sodium hydroxide and/or hydrochloric acid may be added to adjust pH.
ACTIONS: EUTHASOL (pentobarbital sodium and phenytoin sodium) contains two active
ingredients which are chemically compatible but pharmacologically different. Each
ingredient acts in such a manner so as to cause humane, painless, and rapid euthanasia.
Euthanasia is due to cerebral death in conjunction with respiratory arrest and circulatory
collapse. Cerebral death occurs prior to the cessation of cardiac activity.
When administered intravenously, pentobarbital sodium produces rapid anesthetic action.
There is a smooth and rapid onset of unconsciousness. At the lethal dose, there is depression
of vital medullary respiratory and vasomotor centers.
When administered intravenously, phenytoin sodium produces toxic signs of cardiovascular
collapse and/or central nervous system depression. Hypotension occurs when the drug is
administered rapidly.
Pharmacodynamic Activity: The sequence of events leading to humane, painless, and rapid
euthanasia following the intravenous injection of EUTHASOL is similar to that following
intravenous injection of pentobarbital sodium, or other barbituric acid derivatives. Within
seconds, unconsciousness is induced with simultaneous collapse of the dog. This stage
rapidly progresses to deep anesthesia with concomitant reduction in the blood pressure. A few
seconds later, breathing stops, due to depression of the medullary respiratory center;
encephalographic activity becomes isoelectric, indicating cerebral death; and then cardiac
activity ceases.
Phenytoin sodium exerts its effect during the deep anesthesia stage caused by the
pentobarbital sodium. This ingredient, due to its cardiotoxic properties, hastens the stoppage
of electrical activity in the heart.
Euthasol Euthanasia Solution Indications

For use in dogs for humane, painless, and rapid euthanasia.

WARNING: For canine euthanasia only. Must not be used for therapeutic purposes. Do
not use in animals intended for food.

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD: This product is toxic to wildlife. Birds and mammals

feeding on treated animals may be killed. Euthanized animals must be properly disposed of
by deep burial, incineration, or other method in compliance with state and local laws, to
prevent consumption of carcass material by scavenging wildlife.
CAUTION: Caution should be exercised to avoid contact of the drug with open wounds
or accidental self-inflicted injections. Keep out of reach of children. If eye contact, flush
with water and seek medical advice/attention.
Precautions
Euthanasia may sometimes be delayed in dogs with severe cardiac or circulatory
deficiencies. This may be explained by the impaired movement of the drug to its
site of action. An occasional dog may elicit reflex responses manifested by motor
movement; however, an unconscious animal does not experience pain, because
the cerebral cortex is not functioning.

When restraint may cause the dog pain, injury, or anxiety, or danger to the person making the
injection, prior use of tranquilizing or immobilizing drugs may be necessary.
http://www.drugs.com/vet/euthasol-euthanasia-solution.html