Robert, Jasmine and Thomas are discussing the Kevorkian case. Answer questions 1-7 by writing/saying R (for Robert), J (for Jasmine) and T (for Thomas)

1. Who completely disagrees with what the doctor did?

2. Who claims that Mrs Atkins killed herself?

3. Who thinks the quality of a patient’s life is an important issue?

4. Who thinks sick people aren’t always able to make good decisions?

5. Who is worried about what might happen in the future?

6. Who believes doctors already make life and death decisions for patents?

7. Who thinks the doctor may escape justice?

From Think Ahead to First Certificate by Jon Naunton

Before you read

1. You are going to read an article about euthanasia, which is the termination of a very sick person's life in order to relieve them of their suffering. Why is there so much opposition to this presumably humane idea?

2. Discuss with your partner the following questions.

-On whose request does a doctor agree to euthanasia?

- Is euthanasia unethical?

- What does the law say about euthanasia?

3. Skim the text to check your ideas.

Reading A

The term euthanasia comes from the Greek words "eu"-meaning good and "thanatos"-meaning death, which combined means “well-death” or "dying well". Hippocrates mentions euthanasia in the Hippocratic Oath, which was written between 400 and 300 BC The original Oath states: “To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.” Despite this, the ancient Greeks and Romans generally did not believe that life needed to be preserved at any cost and were, in consequence, tolerant of suicide in cases where no relief could be offered to the dying or, in the case of the Stoics and Epicureans, where a person no longer cared for his life.

Since the 19th Century, euthanasia has sparked intermittent debates and activism in North America and Europe. According to medical historian Ezekiel Emanuel, it was the availability of anesthesia that ushered in the modern era of euthanasia. In 1828, the first known anti-euthanasia law in the United States was passed in the state of New York, with many other localities and states following suit over a period of several years. After the Civil War, voluntary euthanasia was promoted by advocates, including some doctors. Support peaked around the turn of the century in the US and then grew again in the 1930s.

In an article in the Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Brown University historian Jacob M. Appel documented extensive political debate over legislation to legalize physician-assisted suicide in both Iowa and Ohio in 1906. Appel indicates social activist Anna S. Hall was the driving force behind this movement. According to historian Ian Dowbiggin, leading public figures, including Clarence Darrow and Jack London, advocated for the legalization of euthanasia.

Euthanasia societies were formed in England in 1935 and in the USA in 1938 to promote euthanasia. Although euthanasia legislation did not pass in the USA or England, in 1937, doctor-assisted euthanasia was declared legal in Switzerland as long as the doctor ending the life had nothing to gain. During this same era, US courts tackled cases involving critically ill people who requested physician assistance in dying as well as “mercy killings”, such as by parents of their severely disabled children.

Euthanasia may be classified according to whether a person gives informed consent into three types: 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 & Davidson and, later, by Wreen, consent on the part of the patient was not considered to be one of their criteria. However, others see consent as essential. For example, in a discussion of euthanasia presented in 2003 by the European Association of Palliative Care (EPAC) Ethics Task Force, the authors offered the unambiguous statement: “Medicalized killing of a person without the person's consent, whether nonvoluntary (where the person in unable to consent) or involuntary (against the person's will) is not euthanasia: it is murder. Hence, euthanasia can be voluntary only.”

Voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia can all be further divided into passive or active variants. A number of authors consider these terms to be misleading and unhelpful.

Euthanasia raises a number of agonizing moral dilemmas: is it ever right to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is undergoing severe pain and suffering? Under what circumstances can euthanasia be justifiable, if at all? Is there a moral difference between killing someone and letting them die? At the heart of these arguments are the different ideas that people have about the meaning and value of human existence.

Should human beings have the right to decide on issues of life and death?