1. Euthanasia

2. bioethics
in philosophy, a branch of ethics concerned with issues surrounding health care and the biological sciences.
Include :
Abortion
euthanasia
in vitro fertilization
organ transplants
genetic engineering(gene therapy)

3. historical background
-from the Greek eu = good + thanatos = death
-the ancient Greeks and Romans did not believe that life needed to be preserved at any cost.
-in the case of the Stoics and Epicureans where a person no longer cared for his life .

4. The legality
-It has been, for the most part, a phenomenon of the second half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty first century
-In the 1990s, the first legislative approval for voluntary euthanasia was achieved with the passage of a bill in the parliament of Australia's Northern Territory to enable physicians to practise voluntary euthanasia

5. In November 2000, The Netherlands passed legislation to legalize the practice of voluntary euthanasia. The legislation passed through all the parliamentary stages early in 2001 and so became law. The Belgian parliament passed similar legislation in May 2002.

6. Classification of euthanasia
voluntary / involuntary
active / Passive

7. Reasons given for voluntary euthanasia
1.Choice: Proponents of VE emphasize that choice is a fundamental principle for liberal democracies and free market systems
2.Quality of Life: The pain and suffering a person feels during a disease, even with pain relievers, can be incomprehensible to a person who has not gone through it. Even without considering the physical pain, it is often difficult for patients to overcome the emotional pain of losing their independence.

8. 3.Economic costs and human resources: Today in many countries there is a shortage of hospital space. The energy of doctors and hospital beds could be used for people whose lives could be saved instead of continuing the life of those who want to die which increases the general quality of care and shortens hospital waiting lists. It is a burden to keep people alive past the point they can contribute to society, especially if the resources used could be spent on a curable ailment.

9. Five Individually Necessary Conditions for Candidacy for Voluntary Euthanasia
Advocates of voluntary euthanasia contend that if a person
is suffering from a terminal illness
is unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure for that illness during what remains of her life expectancy
is, as a direct result of the illness, either suffering intolerable pain, or only has available a life that is unacceptably burdensome

10. has an enduring, voluntary and competent wish to die (or has, prior to losing the competence to do so, expressed a wish to die in the event that conditions (a)-(c) are satisfied)
is unable without assistance to commit suicide
then there should be legal and medical provision to enable her to be allowed to die or assisted to die.

11. Five Objections to the Moral Permissibility of Voluntary Euthanasia
It is often said that it is not necessary nowadays for anyone to die while suffering from intolerable or overwhelming pain. We are getting better at providing effective palliative care, and hospice care is more widely available. Given these considerations, some have urged that voluntary euthanasia is unnecessary.

12. There are several flaws in this counter-argument :
1st neither is a panacea
2nd small proportion of the terminally ill and then usually only in the very last stages of the illness
3rd For those who prefer to die on their own terms and in their own time, neither option may be attractive
4th For some, what is intolerable is their dependence on others or on machinery; for these patients, the availability of effective pain control will be quite irrelevant

13. Objection 2
we can never have sufficient evidence to be justified in believing that a dying person's request to be helped to die is competent, enduring and genuinely voluntary
- cooling off period

14. Objection 3 doctrine of double effect
it is permissible to act in ways which it is foreseen will have bad consequences, provided only that
1st occurs as a side effect (or, indirectly) to the achievement of the act that is directly aimed at this
2nd the act directly aimed at is itself morally good or, at least, morally neutral
3rd the good effect is not achieved by way of the bad, that is, the bad must not be a means to the good
4th the bad consequences must not be so serious as to outweigh the good effect

15. According to the doctrine of double effect, it is, for example, permissible to alleviate pain by administering drugs such as morphine, knowing that doing so will shorten life, but impermissible to give an overdose or injection with the direct intention of terminating a patient's life (whether at her request or not). This is not the appropriate forum to give full consideration to this doctrine. However, there is one vital criticism to be made of the doctrine concerning its relevance to the issue of voluntary euthanasia.

16. Objection 4 -The distinction is very unclear
Difference between active and passive voluntary euthanasia is generally a matter of pragmatics rather than anything of deeper importance .
the distinction between killing and letting die is unclear

17. Objection 5 slippery slope
Whereas it was once the common refrain that that was precisely what happened in Hitler's Germany, in recent decades the tendency has been to claim that experience in The Netherlands has confirmed the reality of the slippery slope .

18. -Robert Young, Voluntary Euthanasia, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , First published Thu Apr 18, 1996; substantive revision Wed Aug 27, 2008.
-The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.
-Henry S. Richardson. Moral Reasoning, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, First published Mon Sep 15, 2003; substantive revision Sat Aug 4,
-علی پور محمدی،اتانازی چیست؟،خردنامه همشهری،بهمن 86