right to die right to die the right to die is a concept based on the opinion that human beings are entitled to end their life or undergo voluntary euthanasia. possession of this right is often understood that a person with a terminal illness, incurable pain, or without the will to continue living, should be allowed to end their own life, use assisted suicide, or to decline life-prolonging treatment. the question of who, if anyone, may be empowered to make this decision is often the subject of debate. 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 religious views on suicide vary from the hindu and jain practices of non-violent suicide through fasting (prayopavesa and santhara, respectively) to considering it a grave sin, as in catholicism. ethics the preservation and value of life have led to many medical advancements when it comes to treating patients. new devices and the development of palliative care have allowed humans to live longer than before. prior to these medical advancements and care, the lifespans of those who were unconscious, minimally unconscious, and in a vegetative state were short as they were unable to receive assistance with basic needs such as breathing and feeding. the advancement of medical technology raises the question about the quality of life of patients who are no longer conscious. for example, the right to self-determination questions the definition of quality and sanctity of life—if one had the right to live, then the right to die must follow suit. there are questions in ethics as to whether or not a right to die can coexist with a right to life. if it is argued that the right to life is inalienable, then it cannot be surrendered and therefore may be incompatible with a right to die. a second debate exists within bioethics over whether the right to die is universal, only applies under certain circumstances (such as terminal illness), or if it exists at all. it is also stated that 'right to live' is not synonymous to 'obligation to live.' from that point of view, the right to live can coexist with the right to die. the right to die is supported and rejected by many. arguments for this right include: if one had a right to live, then one must have the right to die, both on their terms. death is a natural process of life thus there should not be any laws to prevent it if the patient seeks to end it. what we do at the end of our lives should not be of concern to others. if euthanasia is strictly controlled, we can avoid entering a slippery slope and prevent patients from seeking alternative methods which may not be legal. arguments against include: it can lead to a slippery slope; if we allow patients this right, it can expand and have dire consequences. give rise to pressuring those to end their lives or the lives of others; ethically immoral by human and medical standards. "throwing away" patients who are deemed no longer capable to be part of society. decrease in palliative end-of-life care due to the expectation of terminal patients to exercise their right to die. a court in the american state of montana for example, has found that the right to die only applies to those with life-threatening medical conditions. physician-assisted suicide advocate ludwig minelli, euthanasia expert sean w. asher, and bioethics professor jacob m. appel, in contrast, argue that all competent people have a right to end their own lives. appel has suggested that the right to die is a test for the overall freedom of a given society. a professor in social work, alexandre baril, proposed to create an ethic of responsibility "based on a harm-reduction, non-coercive approach to suicide. suggest that assisted suicide should be an option for suicidal people." he argued that the voice of suicidal people is viewed as illegitimate and that there are 'injunctions to live and to futurity' where suicidal subjects are oppressed and silenced. baril suggests the word suicidism to describe the " oppressive system (stemming from non-suicidal perspectives) functioning at the normative, discursive, medical, legal, social, political, economic, and epistemic levels in which suicidal people experience multiple forms of injustice and violence " he suggests creating safer spaces and listening to suicidal people without forcing the 'will to live' upon them. the 1991 patient self-determination act passed by the us congress at the request of the financial arm of medicare does permit elderly medicare/medicaid patients (and by implication, all "terminal" patients) to prepare an advance directive in which they elect or choose to refuse life-extending and/or life-saving treatments as a means of shortening their lives and thus suffering unto certain death. under us law (1991 psda), the treatment refused in an advance directive does not have to be proved to be "medically futile" under some existing due-process procedure developed under state laws, such as tada in texas. by country status of euthanasia around the world: active voluntary euthanasia legal (belgium, canada, colombia, luxembourg, the netherlands, new zealand, spain and the australian states of new south wales, queensland, south australia, tasmania, victoria and western australia) passive euthanasia legal (refusal of treatment / withdrawal of life support) active euthanasia illegal, passive euthanasia not legislated or regulated all forms of euthanasia illegal as of 2023, some forms of voluntary euthanasia are legal in australia, belgium, canada, colombia, luxembourg, the netherlands, new zealand, spain and switzerland. australia as euthanasia is a health issue, under the australian constitution this falls to state and territory governments to legislate and manage. euthanasia was legal within the northern territory during parts of 1996–1997 as a result of the territory parliament passing rights of the terminally ill act 1995. as a territory and not a state, the federal government under prime minister john howard amended the northern territory (self-government) act 1978 (amongst others) to ensure that territories of australia are no longer able to legislate on euthanasia.however, this was repealed in december 2022 with the passing of restoring territory rights act. the federal government is not able to legislate restrictions on health issues for the australian states and territories in the same manner. voluntary assisted dying schemes have been in effect in the following states; victoria since 19 june 2019, western australia since 1 july 2021, tasmania since 23 october 2022, queensland since 1 january 2023, and south australia since 31 january 2023. new south wales was the final state to pass legislation for assisted dying in may 2022, which will go into effect on 28 november 2023. belgium main article: euthanasia in belgium in 2002, the belgian parliament legalized euthanasia. canada as of august 2011, a british columbia supreme court judge had been requested to speed up a right to die lawsuit so that gloria taylor could have a doctor assist her in dying by suicide. she had lou gehrig's disease. she died of an infection in 2012. a british columbia civil liberties lawsuit is representing six plaintiffs and challenges the laws that make it a criminal offence to assist seriously and incurably ill individuals to die with dignity. on 6 february 2015 the supreme court of canada ruled that denying the right to assisted suicide is unconstitutional. the court's ruling limits physician-assisted suicides to "a competent adult person who clearly consents to the termination of life and has a grievous and irremediable medical condition, including an illness, disease or disability, that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition." the ruling was suspended for 12 months to allow the canadian parliament to draft a new, constitutional law to replace the existing one. the court decision includes a requirement that there must be stringent limits that are "scrupulously monitored." this will require the death certificate to be completed by an independent medical examiner, not the treating physician, to ensure the accuracy of reporting the cause of death. the canadian medical association (cma) reported that not all doctors were willing to assist in a patient's death due to legal complications and went against what a physician stood for. many physicians stated that they should have a voice when it comes to helping a patient end their life. however, the belief in late 2015 was that no physician would be forced to do so but the cma was offering educational sessions to members as to the process that would be used. on 17 june 2016, legislation passed both houses of the parliament of canada and received royal assent to allow euthanasia within canada. the euthanizing agents of choice for animals and pets are the barbiturates pentobarbital (known popularly for their abuse potential as "yellow jackets") in combination with the phenol hypnotic propofol: with new regulations regarding the previous synthetic-opioid euthanizing agent t-61 as illegal or inhumane, with or without the previous use of ketamine (s-isomer) to relieve the symptoms of intense anxiety caused by t-61 alone. given the mixed mechanism of actions of both propofol and nembutal, this is arguably one, if not the absolute most comfortable way of dying for mammals. colombia main article: legality of euthanasia § colombia on 20 may 1997, the constitutional court of colombia decriminalised piety homicide, for terminally ill patients, stating that "the medical author cannot be held responsible for the assisted suicide of a terminally ill patient" and urged congress to regulate euthanasia "in the shortest time possible". on 15 december 2014, the constitutional court had given the ministry of health and social protection 30 days to publish guidelines for the healthcare sector to use in order to guarantee terminally ill patients, with the wish to undergo euthanasia, their right to a dignified death. germany in february 2020, the federal constitutional court ruled that the right to personal identity in german constitutional law encompasses a right to self-determined death, which in turn contains a right to suicide. notably, this right is not limited to terminally ill patients, instead finding its limits within the requirement for the choice to be autonomous. the ruling has sparked controversy, with opponents arguing that the ruling may enable peer pressure into assisted suicide. india since 2018, the supreme court of india has legalized passive euthanasia in india during a case involving aruna shanbaug under strict conditions, namely that the patient's consent (or relatives) is needed, and that the patient must be terminally ill or vegetative state. netherlands the netherlands legalized voluntary euthanasia in 2002. under dutch law, euthanasia and assisted suicide can only be performed by doctors, and that is only legal in cases of "hopeless and unbearable" suffering. in practice, this means that it is limited to those with serious and incurable medical conditions (including mental illness) and in considerable suffering like pain, hypoxia or exhaustion. helping somebody to die by suicide without meeting the qualifications of the dutch euthanasia law is illegal. these criteria concern the patient's request, the patient's suffering (unbearable), the infaust prognosis (hopeless), the information provided to the patient, the absence of reasonable alternatives, consultation of another physician and the applied method of ending life. new zealand euthanasia is legal in new zealand. in 2015, a lawyer with cancer lecretia seales brought a case (seales v attorney-general) to the high court to challenge new zealand law for her right to die with the assistance of her gp, asking for a declaration that her gp would not risk conviction. however legislation to legalize euthanasia for terminally ill patients was voted upon in the 2020 general election and was voted in favour of legalisation. the end of life choice bill took effect on 7 november 2021. peru peru legally forbids