euthanasia euthanasia euthanasia (from greek: εὐθανασία, lit. 'good death': εὖ, eu, 'well, good' + θάνατος, thanatos, 'death') is the practice of intentionally ending life to eliminate pain and suffering. part of a series oneuthanasia types animal child voluntary non-voluntary involuntary views religious buddhist catholic culture of life euthanasia and the slippery slope right to die right to life groups compassion & choices death with dignity national center dignitas exit international final exit network hemlock society not dead yet care not killing people jack kevorkian philip nitschke barbara coombs lee books final exit the peaceful pill handbook the future of assisted suicide and euthanasia jurisdictions australia canada india luxembourg mexico netherlands new zealand switzerland united kingdom united states uruguay laws rights of the terminally ill act 1995 (australia) baby doe law alternatives assisted suicide palliative care principle of double effect palliative sedation other issues suicide tourism groningen protocol euthanasia device part of a series onhomicide murder note: varies by jurisdiction assassination child murder consensual homicide contract killing crime of passion depraved-heart murder felony murder rule foeticide honor killing human cannibalism human sacrifice child sacrifice internet homicide lonely hearts killer lust murder lynching mass murder mass shooting mass stabbing misdemeanor murder murder for body parts murder–suicide poisoning proxy murder pseudocommando serial killer angel of mercy spree killer thrill killing torture murder vehicle-ramming attack manslaughter in english law voluntary manslaughter negligent homicide vehicular homicide non-criminal homicide note: varies by jurisdiction war assisted suicide capital punishment euthanasia foeticide justifiable homicide "license to kill" by victim or victims suicide family avunculicide/nepoticide familicide mariticide uxoricide prolicide filicide infanticide neonaticide siblicide fratricide sororicide parricide matricide patricide senicide other crucifixion deicide democide friendly fire gendercide femicide androcide genocide omnicide regicide stoning tyrannicide war crime different countries have different euthanasia laws. the british house of lords select committee on medical ethics defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering". in the netherlands and belgium, euthanasia is understood as "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient". the dutch law, however, does not use the term 'euthanasia' but includes the concept under the broader definition of "assisted suicide and termination of life on request". euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. voluntary euthanasia is when a person wills to have their life ended and is legal in a growing number of countries. non-voluntary euthanasia occurs when a patient's consent is unavailable and is legal in some countries under certain limited conditions, in both active and passive forms. involuntary euthanasia, which is done without asking for consent or against the patient's will, is illegal in all countries and is usually considered murder. as of 2006 euthanasia had become the most active area of research in bioethics. in some countries divisive public controversy occurs over the moral, ethical, and legal issues associated with euthanasia. passive euthanasia (known as "pulling the plug") is legal under some circumstances in many countries. active euthanasia, however, is legal or de facto legal in only a handful of countries (for example: belgium, canada and switzerland), which limit it to specific circumstances and require the approval of counselors and doctors or other specialists. in some countries—such as nigeria, saudi arabia and pakistan—support for active euthanasia is almost non-existent. definition like other terms borrowed from history, "euthanasia" has had different meanings depending on usage. the first apparent usage of the term "euthanasia" belongs to the historian suetonius, who described how the emperor augustus, "dying quickly and without suffering in the arms of his wife, livia, experienced the 'euthanasia' he had wished for." the word "euthanasia" was first used in a medical context by francis bacon in the 17th century, to refer to an easy, painless, happy death, during which it was a "physician's responsibility to alleviate the 'physical sufferings' of the body." bacon referred to an "outward euthanasia"—the term "outward" he used to distinguish from a spiritual concept—the euthanasia "which regards the preparation of the soul." in current usage, euthanasia has been defined as the "painless inducement of a quick death". however, it is argued that this approach fails to properly define euthanasia, as it leaves open a number of possible actions which would meet the requirements of the definition, but would not be seen as euthanasia. in particular, these include situations where a person kills another, painlessly, but for no reason beyond that of personal gain; or accidental deaths that are quick and painless, but not intentional. another approach incorporates the notion of suffering into the definition. the definition offered by the oxford english dictionary incorporates suffering as a necessary condition, with "the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma", this approach is included in marvin khol and paul kurtz's definition of it as "a mode or act of inducing or permitting death painlessly as a relief from suffering". counterexamples can be given: such definitions may encompass killing a person suffering from an incurable disease for personal gain (such as to claim an inheritance), and commentators such as tom beauchamp and arnold davidson have argued that doing so would constitute "murder simpliciter" rather than euthanasia. the third element incorporated into many definitions is that of intentionality – the death must be intended, rather than being accidental, and the intent of the action must be a "merciful death". michael wreen argued that "the principal thing that distinguishes euthanasia from intentional killing simpliciter is the agent's motive: it must be a good motive insofar as the good of the person killed is concerned." similarly, heather draper speaks to the importance of motive, arguing that "the motive forms a crucial part of arguments for euthanasia, because it must be in the best interests of the person on the receiving end." definitions such as that offered by the house of lords select committee on medical ethics take this path, where euthanasia is defined as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering." beauchamp and davidson also highlight baruch brody's "an act of euthanasia is one in which one person ... (a) kills another person (b) for the benefit of the second person, who actually does benefit from being killed". draper argued that any definition of euthanasia must incorporate four elements: an agent and a subject; an intention; a causal proximity, such that the actions of the agent lead to the outcome; and an outcome. based on this, she offered a definition incorporating those elements, stating that euthanasia "must be defined as death that results from the intention of one person to kill another person, using the most gentle and painless means possible, that is motivated solely by the best interests of the person who dies." prior to draper, beauchamp and davidson had also offered a definition that includes these elements. their definition specifically discounts fetuses to distinguish between abortions and euthanasia: in summary, we have argued ... that the death of a human being, a, is an instance of euthanasia if and only if (1) a's death is intended by at least one other human being, b, where b is either the cause of death or a causally relevant feature of the event resulting in death (whether by action or by omission); (2) there is either sufficient current evidence for b to believe that a is acutely suffering or irreversibly comatose, or there is sufficient current evidence related to a's present condition such that one or more known causal laws supports b's belief that a will be in a condition of acute suffering or irreversible comatoseness; (3) (a) b's primary reason for intending a's death is cessation of a's (actual or predicted future) suffering or irreversible comatoseness, where b does not intend a's death for a different primary reason, though there may be other relevant reasons, and (b) there is sufficient current evidence for either a or b that causal means to a's death will not produce any more suffering than would be produced for a if b were not to intervene; (4) the causal means to the event of a's death are chosen by a or b to be as painless as possible, unless either a or b has an overriding reason for a more painful causal means, where the reason for choosing the latter causal means does not conflict with the evidence in 3b; (5) a is a nonfetal organism. wreen, in part responding to beauchamp and davidson, offered a six-part definition: person a committed an act of euthanasia if and only if (1) a killed b or let her die; (2) a intended to kill b; (3) the intention specified in (2) was at least partial cause of the action specified in (1); (4) the causal journey from the intention specified in (2) to the action specified in (1) is more or less in accordance with a's plan of action; (5) a's killing of b is a voluntary action; (6) the motive for the action specified in (1), the motive standing behind the intention specified in (2), is the good of the person killed. wreen also considered a seventh requirement: "(7) the good specified in (6) is, or at least includes, the avoidance of evil", although as wreen noted in the paper, he was not convinced that the restriction was required. in discussing his definition, wreen noted the difficulty of justifying euthanasia when faced with the notion of the subject's "right to life". in response, wreen argued that euthanasia has to be voluntary, and that "involuntary euthanasia is, as such, a great wrong". other commentators incorporate consent more directly into their definitions. for example, in a discussion of euthanasia presented in 2003 by the european association of palliative care (epac) ethics task force, the authors offered: "medicalized killing of a person without the person's consent, whether nonvoluntary (where the person is unable to consent) or involuntary (against the person's will) is not euthanasia: it is murder. hence, euthanasia can be voluntary only." although the epac ethics task force argued that both non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia could not be included in the definition of euthanasia, there is discussion in the literature about excluding one but not the other. classification euthanasia may be classified into three types, according to whether a person gives informed consent: voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary. there is a debate within the medical and bioethics literature about whether or not the non-voluntary (and by extension, involuntary) killing of patients can be regarded as euthanasia, irrespective of intent or the patient's circumstances. in the definitions offered by beauchamp and davidson and, later, by wreen, consent on the part of the patient was not considered one of their criteria, although it may have been required to justify euthanasia. however, others see consent as essential. voluntary euthanasia