Abortion has been used throughout the world for thousands of years. Discuss.
Background
Abortion has been used throughout the world for thousands of years.
In the UK abortion became illegal in the 19th Century when the penalty for 'procuring a miscarriage' was life imprisonment. Women trying to escape the burden of an unwanted pregnancy were forced to use unreliable and dangerous methods, including poisonous drugs, knitting needles, soap or lead solutions inserted through syringes, and blows to the abdomen.
However many people were appalled by the number of women suffering and dying as a result of illegal abortion. Pressure for reform finally resulted in Liberal MP David Steel's Abortion Law Reform Bill, which became law on 27 October 1967 and took effect on 27 April 1968.
This was amended in 1990 by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act which changed the upper limit from 28 to 24 weeks for most abortions, due to the fact that advances in medicine mean it is now possible to keep some babies alive born after about 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Since 1967, there have been at over 20 unsuccessful attempts in Parliament to restrict the law, prompted by pressure groups opposed to legal abortion. However, recent polls show more than 80% of adults are in favour of abortion on request.
Ethics
The subject of abortion arouses fierce debate. People who are against abortion describe it as murder because they believe that a fertilised egg is a human being which possesses a soul from the moment of conception, and has the right to life under all circumstances. Pro-choice supporters see the fertilised egg as potential life, based on medical and scientific evidence that the fetus is not viable (ie capable of independent life) in the early stages of pregnancy and is still a part of its mother. In fact nature chooses not to allow all fertilised eggs to develop: it is estimated that as many as 25% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion or miscarriage.
Abortion has existed throughout history and making it illegal or socially unacceptable does not drive it away - it merely adds to the pain and danger which women are prepared to face to avoid carrying on with an unwanted pregnancy. People who have a moral or religious objection to abortion should not be forced to have or to participate in an abortion against their will. Should they be allowed to use the law to impose their views on those who do not share their beliefs?
If women are to enjoy a healthy, happy life and to offer the same to any children they may have, they need to be able to exercise control over their reproductive lives. Not all women are able to use contraception effectively at all times. Surely a request for an abortion is a responsible decision when faced with the prospect of a child that she is not able to love or care for? Why should a woman seeking abortion be accused of having no respect for life when her prime concern has been the future quality of life for herself, the potential child, her partner and her family?
Although it is women whose health and well-being are most affected by the availability of abortion, it is often men who have the power to decide. That is why pro-choice groups continue to press for a woman's right to decide for herself, believing that society should recognise that women are trustworthy, responsible people who are capable of making valid judgements for themselves on moral issues.
Religion
No religion actively supports abortion, but some religions accept that there are situations when abortion may be necessary.
The Roman Catholic Church is the only major world religion to rule that abortion is absolutely unacceptable in all circumstances (including the probable death of the mother). However it is only since 1869, when Pope Pius VI declared that 'ensoulment' (gaining a soul) happened at conception, that Catholics have been taught that abortion is always morally evil.
The Church of England and the Church of Scotland teach that abortion is wrong because it denies the fetus the right to life but there are certain extreme circumstances (ie serious risk to the health of the mother) when her needs override the rights of the fetus.
Judaism teaches that life begins at the moment of birth, however abortion is discouraged except where the mother's life is at risk. Hindu scriptures also only allow abortion under these circumstances.
Islam also teaches that abortion is permitted only in extreme circumstances in which case the actual life of the mother takes precedence over the probable life of the fetus. Some scholars also sanction abortion if the pregnancy resulted from rape. As it is believed that the fetus becomes 'ensouled' at 120 days, early abortion is preferred.
The Free Churches (Baptist, Methodist and Evangelical) hold that abortion is a matter for the individual to decide. The Methodists in particular have been outspoken in their view that personal and social factors need to be considered in each case.
However there are many people whose attitude towards abortion differs from those of their religious leaders. They believe that individuals have the right to follow their own consciences, and women from all religions continue to seek abortions.
Who?
Since it became legal in 1968, more than three million British women - about 4 out of 10 women now aged between 16 and 60 - have had an abortion. The annual number of abortions in Britain (not UK) has risen from just over 100,000 in 1971 to 163,600 in 1995, mainly because there are more women of childbearing age but also because it has become more acceptable. About one in five (20%) of all pregnancies ends in abortion.
In 1991, nearly 90% of British abortions were carried out in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. More than half of the women were in their 20s, while teenagers accounted for just under one fifth. Nearly 90% had an abortion on the grounds of risk to their physical or mental health.
The number of women travelling to Britain for abortions has fallen dramatically since it has become legal in most Western countries. Of the 9,300 non-resident women having an abortion in 1995, 6,750 were from other parts of the British Isles (including the Irish Republic).
Why?
Unplanned pregnancies are not necessarily unwanted but the news can come as a terrible shock. Although contraception is freely accessible in this country, no contraceptive has yet been developed which is 100% safe and effective, and contraceptive failure is currently a major reason for women requesting abortion.
There are many reasons for not wishing to continue a pregnancy: the woman may be too young or too old; it is the wrong time in her life; she is single and lacks financial and emotional support; she has too many other responsibilities; her baby is likely to be born with serious disabilities; she is pregnant as a result of rape or incest; she has no home or secure base; she has a serious disease which would be made worse by pregnancy; there is a hereditary disease in her or her partner's family; she has a large family already; she has relationship or marriage problems.
Law
In the UK (except for Northern Ireland), legal termination of pregnancy may be carried out IF two doctors agree that the woman is less than 24 weeks pregnant AND that continuing with the pregnancy would involve risk to her physical or mental health greater than if the pregnancy was terminated OR that continuing with the pregnancy would involve risk to the physical or mental health of any existing children in her family.
The 24 week limit does not apply IF the woman's life would be at risk if the pregnancy continued OR if there is a risk of grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman if the pregnancy continues OR if there is substantial risk that the child would be born with a serious disability.
Abortion is not available on request. Two doctors must agree and those with religious or moral objections are not legally obliged to help. Even a woman pregnant as a result of rape or incest does not automatically ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The 24 week limit does not apply IF the woman's life would be at risk if the pregnancy continued OR if there is a risk of grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman if the pregnancy continues OR if there is substantial risk that the child would be born with a serious disability.
Abortion is not available on request. Two doctors must agree and those with religious or moral objections are not legally obliged to help. Even a woman pregnant as a result of rape or incest does not automatically qualify for an abortion.
Many late abortions (towards the 24-week time limit) occur because the woman has experienced difficulty in obtaining an NHS abortion. Pro-choice organisations are currently campaigning for abortion on request in the first three months of pregnancy to minimise the increased medical risks and emotional distress associated with late abortion.
In England and Wales only 70% of abortions are provided free by the NHS (in Scotland more than 95% of abortions are free). Local services vary considerably - some districts carry out less than 50% of local abortions. A woman may have to pay £200 - £500 at a private clinic simply because of where she lives.
Methods
Early abortion (up to 12 weeks) most commonly involves 'vacuum aspiration', which means that the contents of the uterus are sucked out by an electric pump. This procedure takes about 10-15 minutes and is usually done under general anaesthetic. In some cases 'dilation and curettage (D&C)' or 'dilation and evacuation (D&E)' is also carried out to remove the contents of lining of the womb with an instrument. At 12 weeks, the fetus is only 50 mm long, and most of the tissue is made up of placenta and blood, rather like a heavy period.
A non-surgical method was introduced in 1991. Mifepristone or RU486 ( also known as the "Abortion Pill") can now be used by women before the ninth week and between the 13th and 20th weeks of pregnancy. As with all abortions, these must take place in an NHS hospital or a licensed clinic.
In the later stages of pregnancy, a form of labour is induced by the use of prostaglandins, a kind of hormone which causes miscarriage. This takes several hours and can be more distressing for both the woman and the medical staff involved.
After the abortion most women experience a huge feeling of relief, which may be tinged with sadness or guilt. Some women blame the abortion for their depression, instead of the crisis of the unwanted pregnancy.
It is important to seek reliable contraceptive advice: abortion is not an alternative to contraception. There are also two emergency methods of contraception: the so-called 'morning after pill' which can be taken up to 72 hours (three days) after intercourse, and the intra-uterine device (also known as an IUD or coil), which can be fitted by a doctor up to five days after unprotected sex.
Opinion
Public opinion has shown consistent support for a woman's right to choose abortion.
In 1964, when abortion was illegal, 44% of those asked said that abortion should be legal 'if the pregnant woman is unable to cope with any more children' (49% were against this). In 1965 two thirds of those questioned believed that abortion should be legal 'in some cases'.
In 1976, after the 1967 Abortion Act, 55% agreed that 'abortion should be legally available for all who want it'. Between 1979-1987, between 76-80% consistently supported the woman's right to choose; in consultation with her doctor.
Other polls, help to show whether sex, age and religion make any difference to people's opinions on abortion.
In 1988, a poll asked 'Do you think that women should have the right to choose abortion in the first few months of pregnancy?'. 86% of the Church of England members were in favour, as were over two thirds of the Roman Catholics. Of the non-Christians, 7 out of 8 Jews, all 3 Sikhs, 4 out of 6 Hindus, and 2 out of 6 Muslims favoured free choice. Of those with no religious beliefs, 85% supported the right to choose.
An April 1991 poll showed the highest ever support for abortion on request. In response to 'Do you think that women should or should not have the right to choose an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy?' 81.2% were in favour of the right to choose. More women (84%) than men (78%) were pro-choice, and the youngest age group (18-24) was most in favour, with 90% of them in support.
More recent polls have continued to show this level of support for abortion on request.
Safety
Access to safe abortion can dramatically improve the quality of life and general health of women throughout the world.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that worldwide 40-60 million abortions take place each year, ie between one third and one fifth of all pregnancies are terminated. Twenty million of these abortions take place in countries where abortion is illegal, forcing women to turn to back-street abortionists. These unsafe abortions kill an estimated 100,000 women each year, while many others are permanently injured. Before abortion became legal in Britain, reliable estimates put the number of illegal abortions at 100,000 a year, with many resulting deaths.
However legal abortion is very safe, particularly when carried out in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. In fact, continuing with a pregnancy is eight times more risky than having a legal abortion. Each year, 500,000 women in developing countries die from pregnancy or pregnancy-related illnesses (including illegal abortion) and even in Britain about 40 women a year die while pregnant or shortly after giving birth - only one of these deaths is due to abortion.
Carrying on with an unwanted pregnancy can cause more long-term stress and suffering than having an abortion. Being refused an abortion has been shown to cause ongoing resentment towards the unwanted child which can last for years, with the child itself being more likely to experience a wide range of emotional and social problems.
Factsheets on voluntary euthanasia
The word 'euthanasia' comes from the Greek words 'eu' and 'thanatos', which together mean 'a good death'. Today, the meaning of 'euthanasia' has widened, to include how that good death is brought about. Specifically, 'euthanasia' is understood to mean a good death brought about by a doctor providing drugs or an injection to bring a peaceful end to the dying process.
There is a great deal of controversy surrounding the issue of euthanasia. In this section, you will find a series of factsheet pages which look at every aspect of this complex debate. What are the views of the major religions about voluntary euthanasia? What's going on in Holland? What do the public think?
For teachers and students, all of these factsheet pages are available to download as PDF files, to make them easier to use. You are also welcome to photocopy them for teaching purposes.
Once you have gained an overview of the subject, if you want to study the issues in greater detail, this site carries a number of academic articles on a variety of related subjects to read through
The case for
pdf/thecasefor.pdf
pdf/thecasefor.pdfThe Voluntary Euthanasia Society was set up in 1935 by a group of doctors, lawyers and churchmen. Our aim is to make it legal for a competent adult, who is suffering unbearably from an incurable illness, to receive medical help to die at their own considered and persistent request. Our case for legalising assisted dying is set out below (go to the definitions section for an explanation of terms).
The right to decide
We believe that everyone has the right to choose how they live and die. Each person has value and is worthy of respect, has basic rights and freedoms and the power to control his or her destiny. Our campaign to legalise assisted dying within certain strictly defined circumstances is fundamentally about choice.
Passive euthanasia versus active euthanasia
At the moment, doctors can legally practice 'passive' euthanasia - that is, taking away or withholding treatment even if the person will die. However, doctors cannot directly help the person to die, for example, by giving a lethal injection. We argue that, in situations where a competent, terminally ill patient is asking for help to die, passive euthanasia has exactly the same moral and practical result as giving a lethal injection at the patient's request.
Quality of life - pain is not the only issue
Not everyone dies well. At least 5% of terminal pain cannot be fully controlled, even with the best care. Other distressing symptoms such as sickness, incontinence or breathlessness cannot always be relieved.
But pain is certainly not the only issue in decisions about the end of life. What a patient thinks about their quality of life is often far more important. Many people do not want to spend the last days or weeks of their life in a way which, to them, is undignified.
Annie Lindsell, a campaigner for legalising assisted dying, said before she died of Motor Neurone Disease in 1997,
"The hospice movement consistently maintains that in most cases it manages the pain of terminally ill patients. What they cannot control, however, is the loss of personal dignity and that is a very individual criterion that no one but the patient can comment on."
Having the power to take control over their life and death can help people to keep a measure of human dignity in the face of their suffering. In 1995, sociologists Julia Addington-Hall and Clive Seale carried out an academic study into what patients with terminal cancer thought about dying. They said:
"Requests for euthanasia may indicate not that patients are giving up in the face of suffering, but that they are positively asserting their desire to control events."
Euthanasia goes on already
At the moment, the law and current medical practice do not match up. In 1994 a survey published in the British Medical Journal showed that some doctors already help patients to die. Few doctors have been prosecuted and, like Dr Cox, who was convicted of attempted murder in 1992, they have always been treated with great sympathy. Doctors are also legally able to give pain-relieving treatment in such high doses that people may die more quickly. This is known as the 'double effect' - relieving the patient's suffering is the accepted consequence of such treatment, with death as an unintended outcome.
We argue that doctors should not be helping patients to die behind closed doors. Assisted dying should be openly discussed and regulated, to make sure that both patients and doctors are protected.
Just one possible option at the end of life
Making it legal to help a person to die does not threaten the hospice movement. Assisted dying should be just one of the options at the end of life. As Dr Pieter Admiraal, a well known Dutch supporter of voluntary euthanasia, has repeatedly stressed, there should be:
"No euthanasia without palliative care."
Public opinion
pdf/publicopinion.pdf
pdf/publicopinion.pdfMedia polls regularly record huge majorities of people who support legalising voluntary euthanasia for the incurably ill. In October 1997, out of nearly 3,000 people who took part in a Sun newspaper telephone opinion poll, an amazing 97% said terminally ill people should have the right to die with dignity. The graph below shows the results of large scale statistical surveys on the topic carried out for us by NOP (National Opinion Polls).
We asked: "Some people say that the law should allow adults to receive medical help to an immediate peaceful death if they suffer from an incurable physical illness that is intolerable to them, provided they have previously requested such help in writing. Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with this?"
GRAPH
It is clear that a large majority agree, and this number is growing every year. The 1993 poll showed that sex, age, region or economic class made little difference to people's views on this subject. And, the majority of people from all religious groups were in favour of voluntary euthanasia.
In 1996, Britain's largest social research institute carried out an independent survey into the social attitudes of British people. The survey showed that 82% of British people agree with doctors helping patients to die if they have a disease which cannot be cured. They also support making such help legal.
It's no accident
Those people who do not agree with their findings often criticise the wording of these polls. But, not even people who are against assisted dying can produce opinion poll results which are against voluntary euthanasia. In 1987, the British Section of the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life, who do not agree with voluntary euthanasia because of their religious beliefs, carried out a MORI poll. Overall, 72% of those surveyed said that voluntary euthanasia should be made legal.
Around the world
These figures are also mirrored in other countries. In the USA support for legalising voluntary euthanasia, as shown by Gallup poll results, has grown from 37% in 1947 to 61% in 1999. The Australian polls also back these results, with public support for voluntary euthanasia rising from 47% in 1962, to 78% in 1995. All around the world, voluntary euthanasia is supported by the majority of people.
NOTE: For those of you who are researching the subject of euthanasia in some detail, our site carries an in-depth listing of opinion surveys from the UK and around the world. Full academic references are given, together with a brief summary of the findings. Where possible, we've also included links to the research, if it can be found on the internet.
Medical opinionpdf/medicalopinion.pdf
pdf/medicalopinion.pdf
There is increasing medical interest and support in the United Kingdom for legalising voluntary euthanasia. In 1990, a working party from the Institute of Medical Ethics said:
"A doctor, acting in good conscience, is ethically justified in assisting death if the need to relieve intense and unceasing pain or distress caused by incurable illness greatly outweighs the benefit to the patient of further prolonging life."
Official opinion supports the present law
At the moment, the British Medical Association (BMA) is against legalising voluntary euthanasia. At their 1997 conference they voted against any immediate change in the law on assisted dying. However, they do support living wills and a patient's right to refuse treatment. In 1999 the BMA said:
"A valid advance refusal of treatment has the same legal authority as a contemporaneous refusal and legal action could be taken against a doctor who provides treatment in the face of a valid refusal."
In July 1995, The Lancet, one of the main medical journals in the world, dealt positively with voluntary euthanasia. The article was called The Final Autonomy, and the final sentence read:
"All we ask is that Medicine moves towards non-medical opinion by admitting euthanasia openly (and more honestly) into all its future discussions of end-of-life decisions affecting competent adults."
However, many doctors support a change in the law
In the September 1996 issue of the BMA News Review, the results of a survey of over 750 GPs and hospital doctors showed that doctors were divided over legalising voluntary euthanasia. The results were as follows:
* 46% of doctors supported a change in the law to allow them to carry out the request of a terminally ill patient for voluntary euthanasia.
* 44% were against euthanasia and supported the present law
* 37% said they would be willing to actively help end the life of a terminally ill patient who had asked for euthanasia, if the law allowed it.
Twenty-two doctors actually confessed to having broken the law and helped someone to die. Following this survey, Dr Stuart Horner, who was then the chairman of the BMA's medical ethics committee, said:
"...if we genuinely believe that all the efforts of medicine have been exhausted it may well be that in a particular case euthanasia has to be considered. That is a matter for the doctor concerned and I would be the last person to say they had done the wrong thing."
Nurses would also like to see a change in the law. In 1995, a survey carried out by the Nursing Times found that 68% of nurses believed that if people ask for help to end their life, it should be given in some circumstances. 69% of nurses had personal experience of a patient asking for voluntary euthanasia.
Doctors DO carry out voluntary euthanasia
In 1994, a report published in the British Medical Journal showed that British doctors do practice voluntary euthanasia, despite the law. The study by Ward and Tate, from Cambridge University, found that 32% of doctors surveyed had agreed to a patient's request to be given treatment to help them die more quickly. A larger proportion - 46% - said they would consider giving treatment to help someone die if it were legal to do so. In November 1997, 200 GPs responded to a survey carried out by Pulse magazine. The survey revealed that 93 GPs (47%) had given treatment to ease a patient's death. 49% said that they had been in a position where they felt that easing a patient's death, other than with the intention of relieving symptoms only, was the right thing to do.
The most recent investigation was carried out by The Sunday Times, in November 1998. A confidential questionnaire, answered by 300 doctors, revealed that one in seven had broken the law and helped a patient to die at their request. The full results were:
Question
Yes
No
Have you ever been asked by a patient to help them die?
44%
56%
Have you ever assisted a patient's death at their request?
5%
83%
Do you think doctors should have the power to assist death without fear of prosecution:
a) by withholding treatment
68%
31%
b) by withdrawing treatment
67%
32%
c) by administering pain killers in the knowledge that they are likely to shorten life?
60%
37%
d) by prescribing lethal drugs for patients to take themselves?
8%
75%
Do you believe in a patient's right to die?
63%
33%
Do you think it is a good idea for patients to make living wills?
69%
27%
Whilst most of the doctors who admit to having helped a patient to die seem to escape prosecution, some of them do, however, fall foul of the law. You can find a summary of all these cases in our law pages.
What about the Hippocratic Oath?
The Hippocratic Oath was established around 2,500 years ago in Greece. Some doctors use it as a guide to carrying out their work. Part of the Hippocratic Oath states:
"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect."
A doctor who follows this oath also promises "not to give a woman a pessary to produce abortion." However, an abortion is now legal in some circumstances, and many doctors perform this operation. The Oath has been changed and updated to fit in with new attitudes and medical practices - it is not a code which cannot be altered. At the moment, the British Medical Association (BMA) is campaigning
to update the oath. They argue that it does not reflect the reality of medical practice today. They want the code to recognise that keeping people alive is not the only aim of health care. As R Weir wrote in 1992:
"The achievement of...appropriate medical goals is more important than a literal adherence to an ancient oath whose religious and moral framework is of such limited relevance to contemporary medicine that the oath is frequently altered when used in medical school convocations and increasingly replaced entirely by other kinds of oaths, including those written by medical students themselves."
It is important to remember that the Voluntary Euthanasia Society was set up by a group of doctors and clergy in 1935. Today, the growing support of the medical profession for assisted dying will eventually help to change the law.
NOTE: For those of you who are researching the subject of euthanasia in some detail, our site also carries an in-depth listing of opinion surveys from the UK and around the world. Full academic references are given, together with a brief summary of the findings. Where possible, we've also included links to the research, if it can be found on the internet.
Religion
pdf/religion.pdf
pdf/religion.pdfMany of the arguments made against assisted dying come from a religious basis. The main source of this religious opposition comes from the Jewish-Christian religions. Out of these, the Roman Catholic Church is the strongest opponent. Islamic and Buddhist faiths also do not agree with euthanasia. The Sikh Darma and Hindu faiths have not taken an official position, and may leave it up to the individual. However, there are individuals within these religions, including ordinary believers and priests, who fully support voluntary euthanasia.
In a 1993 opinion poll carried out for the VES by NOP, most religious people who were surveyed were in favour of medical aid in dying. Whilst 93% of people without religious belief supported this, 83% of Protestants, 73% of Roman Catholics and 60% of Jews were also in favour.
There are three basic arguments Jewish and Christian authorities make against helping a person to die.
. 'Sanctity of Life'
According to religious teaching, life is a gift from God. Only God can decide when a life begins and ends. Any deliberate killing of the innocent without God's authority is wrong, and against the natural law. This extends to situations where a person's life is ended at their request. Voluntary euthanasia breaks this principle - people do not have the right to choose for themselves.
2. Intentional killing is forbidden
The Sixth Commandment states that 'thou shalt not kill'. However, this has never been an absolute prohibition. In certain circumstances the church allows killing - in war, by capital punishment and in self-defence. Some argue that 'thou shalt not kill' is not an accurate translation of the original Hebrew, and that it really means 'thou shalt not murder'. However, whatever the translation, church authorities traditionally believe that voluntary euthanasia is against this Commandment.
3. The value of human suffering
According to Christian teaching, physical suffering is part of God's divine plan for humankind. Suffering has a spiritual significance, and should be faced head-on, in the knowledge that it leads to a growth in virtue and helps in redemption. So, voluntary euthanasia, as a means of ending the suffering of an incurably ill patient, is rejected. Many have attacked this belief for being cruel and outdated.
None of the religious arguments against assisted dying are relevant to those who do not share those beliefs. And of course, despite these teachings, many of those who are religious do not oppose voluntary euthanasia either. In fact, many of those who support assisted dying do so because of their religious beliefs. To them, helping a person to die can be an expression of Christian compassion and the love and support that Christians offer to those in need.
Supportive quotes
"As I understand it, the purpose of life is to love God and to enjoy Him forever. I believe that voluntary euthanasia can be a means to that end."
The late Rev. Lord Soper, a prominent Methodist minister
"I sincerely believe that those who come after us will wonder why on earth we kept a human being alive against his will, when all the dignity, beauty and meaning of life had vanished; when any gain to anyone was clearly impossible, and when we should have been punished by the state if we had kept alive an animal in similar conditions."
The late Rev. Dr Leslie Weatherhead, a Methodist
"...as a Christian and a theologian I am convinced that the all-merciful God, who has given men and women freedom and responsibility for their lives, has also left to dying people the responsibility for making a conscientious decision about the manner and time of their deaths."
Hans Kung, Professor of Theology
Definitions
pdf/definitions.pdf
pdf/definitions.pdf
What is euthanasia?
Euthanasia:
When combined, the ancient Greek words 'eu' and 'thanatos' mean 'a good death'. The word has come to mean the bringing about of a gentle and easy death.
Active euthanasia:
An active intervention by a doctor to end life.
Passive euthanasia:
Deliberately withholding or withdrawing medical treatment which would help the patient to live longer, with the intention of ending life.
Voluntary euthanasia:
When euthanasia is performed following the request of the person who dies. We are campaigning to change the law so that someone who is incurably ill can receive medical help to die at their own request.
Involuntary euthanasia:
Ending the life of an able patient without their permission or against their will. This is murder.
Non-voluntary euthanasia:
Ending the life of a patient who is not capable of giving their permission. The person who carries out the euthanasia may do so for the patient's 'best interest'.
Physician-assisted suicide:
This is closely related to voluntary euthanasia, but the doctor only prescribes rather than gives the patient a lethal drug.
An A-Z of terms
Analgesics:
Pain relieving drugs such as diamorphine (chemical heroin).
Autonomy:
The principle that competent individuals should be free to make choices about their own life. This is known as 'the right to self-determination'.
Brain death:
The irreversible loss of all brain function. A 'brain dead' individual cannot breathe without the help of a machine.
Cardio-respiratory death:
The death of a person because their heart or lungs stop working. The most common definition of death.
Cardio-pulmonary resuscitaion (CPR):
Using cardiac massage and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to try to save the life of someone suffering cardiac arrest (when their heart stops).
Coma:
A sleep-like condition arising from injury to the brain stem. A coma may last for a long time, but they are rarely permanent; many last only a few hours, days or weeks.
Continuing Power of Attorney:
Proposed by the Law Commission in 1995, and being considered by the Government. This power would allow an agent (appointed by an individual) to make decisions for that individual, which they are no longer able to make. This would cover the person's 'personal welfare, health care, property and affairs.'
Diamorphine:
The chemical name for heroin, used as a very effective pain killer.
Dyspnoea:
Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing.
Gastrostomy:
A surgical procedure which creates an opening into the stomach through the abdominal wall, so liquid food can be delivered to the stomach.
Hospice:
A hospital that cares only for the terminally ill and dying. The emphasis is on quality of life. Hospices use the concept of 'total care' for their patients (that is, physical, psychological and spiritual care).
Hydration:
Adding water to replace that lost because of dehydration.
Living will (advance directive):
A document that allows people to leave instructions about their potential medical treatment. This is done in anticipation of the time when they are no longer capable of making decisions or of communicating them. For example, through such a document you could refuse treatment that would keep you alive such as tube feeding, if there is no chance of reasonably recovering from your condition.
Mental incapacity:
A person may be diagnosed as mentally incapacitated if they cannot make a decision on a matter in question - they do not understand the nature of the decision and its implications. A person may also be diagnosed as mentally incapacitated if they cannot communicate a decision because they are unconscious.
Morphine:
A pain killer (analgesic) made from opium.
Naso-gastric feeding:
Feeding a patient by a tube which goes through the nose and into the stomach.
Palliative care:
Treatment given to patients who are incurably ill, with the aim of relieving their suffering and controlling their symptoms in the most effective way. The World Health Organisation definition is:
"The active, total care of patients whose disease is not responsive to curative treatment. Control of pain, of other symptoms, and of psychological, social and spiritual problems, is paramount. The goal of palliative care is achievement of the best quality of life for patients and their families." (WHO, 1990).
Persistent Vegetative State:
In this condition, although the brain stem is still alive and the patient breathes without help, the cerebral cortex (the thinking, feeling and communicating part of the brain) is totally damaged and cannot be repaired. They are completely unaware of themselves and their environment.
Sanctity of life:
A religious concept that holds that life is a gift from God and so can only be ended by God.
Slippery slope:
An argument frequently used against changing the law, which states that it is impossible to set secure limits. Under this argument, it is claimed that voluntary euthanasia would eventually and inevitably lead to non-voluntary or even involuntary euthanasia.
Ventilator:
Machinery used to provide artificial ventilation. Also called a respirator or life-support machine.