what is  euthanesia and which is the first country to adopt it.?
547671
Mercifull Killing. When a guy who is seriously ill and can't be treated any further. and he/she has to live rest of its life in that condition, then this process is done. it is to stop the suffering of the patient. It was first adopted by Sweden.
237815
This is an article [as requested by you], written by an unknown author, and posted on www.studyworld.com.  The author's views are his/her own, and do not in any way reflect Kittykid's views on this topic : \n                  Euthenasia\nSue Rodriguez, who openly advocated Euthanasia, has reminded us all of our own mortality and our need to think carefully about the kind of society we want to live and to die in. \nSue Rodriguez was known through the media, and her well spoken and eloquent speeches. People painfully in support of what she believed in, watched as her strength was sapped by the devastating disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), and we were moved by her clear thought and her bravery as a person facing death. \nHere was a woman who acted on her beliefs with\ncourage and tenacity and whose grace has enriched us all.\nIt is no defense to point to the fact that a person has\nrequested to be killed: "No person is entitled to consent\nto have death inflicted upon him, and such consent does not\naffect the criminal responsibilities of any person by whom\ndeath may be inflicted upon the person by whom consent is\ngiven," which seems to mean that no one has a right to\nconsent to have death inflicted on him or her. \nIn addition, if a person causes the death of another, the consent of the deceased does not provide the person who caused the death a defense to criminal responsibility. Is there a difference, do you think, between a person who, at a dying person's request, prepares a poison and leaves it on the bedside for that person to take, and a person who helps the patient to drink it or who administers it directly at the request of a dying person who is unable to take it personally? Is there, in short, a real distinction between killing and letting die? \nWell, this is the difference between passive and\nactive euthanasia, and if you believe in euthanasia, you\nmust decide which one is correct or even accept both to be\ncorrect depending upon the situation. We must carefully\nthink through a number of conceptual issues. What is a\nperson? What is death? How does the difference between\nactive and passive function in arguments for and against\neuthanasia? Is there any difference between killing and\nletting die? Suppose the doctor agrees to withhold\ntreatment... \nThe justification for his doing so is that the\npatient is in terrible agony, and since he is going to die\nanyway, it would be wrong to prolong his suffering\nneedlessly. But now notice this. If one simply withholds\ntreatment, it may take the patient longer to die, and so he\nmay suffer more than he would if more direct action were\ntaken and a lethal injection given. \nThis fact provides strong reason for thinking that, once the initial decision not to prolong his agony has been made, active euthanasia is actually preferable to passive euthanasia, rather than the reverse. \nIndividuals have the right to decide about\ntheir own lives and deaths. Denying terminally ill patients\nthe right to die with dignity is unfair and cruel. The\ngolden rule requires that we allow active euthanasia for\nterminally ill patients who request it in certain\nsituations. \nPeople have the right to die with dignity and\nlucidity. Gayle Stelter (Vancouver Sun) writes, "For almost\nseven years I have been living with cancer, mostly joyously\nand gratefully, but gradually seeing the disease\nencroaching relentlessly on my once healthy body.\nThroughout these years, I have thought long and hard about\ndeath and I've discovered that it's not the prospect of\ndeath itself that is so frightening, but the process of\ndying. So to give myself courage, I have held an option in\nreserve.\nWhen I can see no quality ahead, when I am capable\nof bidding my loved ones a coherent farewell, when I am\nstill in control of my resources, I will enlist someone's\nhelp to speed me on my journey. \n... For those of us who may choose to leave while there is still
489832
This question is miscategorized.\n\nSpecial Eudcation refers to the education and parenting of children with special needs.
892827
The right to life isn't absolute so people can still be killed ie death penalty or resuscitation it depends on the circumstances.\n\nThe right for freedom applies to everyone in the country where the law applies.
809302
hemophilia federation india \n\na NGO\n\ngoodluck
1031810
It's statistically improbable that a country could operate on such terms. I think perhaps what your friend meant is there are societies in the world where when someone dies, a new couple copulate and prepare to bring a new being to life. This is a spiritual practice as much as a population control mechansim, as they believe that the spirit of the person who died is reborn into the new addition to the society. Such practices are common in tribes and colonies that choose to maintain the prehistoric way of life, such as those living in the amazon, the congo and the himalayas.
808
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), as of 2003, the countries with the highest life expectancies at birth are Japan (82), Andorra, Australia, Italy, Monaco, San Marino, Sweden, Switzerland (81), Canada, France, Iceland, Israel, Singapore, and Spain (80).
238388
Euthanasia is a procedure for patients that simply can't just stick a shotgun into their mouth and pull the trigger. There are Multiple Sclerosis patients who lost their muscle function and can't move. We don't know about the disease, we don't have a treatment and all we can do is to fill you up with pain meds. Or patients with stage four lung cancer that metastasized to brain. They are in so much pain, they can't breath, they can have a prolonged seizure and wake up even without knowing who they are or suffer from permanent brain damage. In a condition like that, we can't cure you, all we can do is to make you live for a couple of months max on  morphine constantly. I think it is their right to choose to die.\n\nBut the condition has to be extreme. Comatose patients can wake up. It doesn't mean that they are dead. I would rather have a patient to die in the O.R. instead of just letting them die because they have bad injuries.\n\nAlso, patient must be competent and personally request euthanasia. It should not be performed on a patient without only and only patient's consent. \n\nA personal note, I also think that if a patient requests euthanasia, they should be psychologically examined and should not be euthanized before the fifth stage of Kubler-Ross' stages of death.
36301
http://www.awcoslo.org/Sections/LivingInOslo/health_care_in_norway.htm
146761
This should be a personal choice addressed by every adult with a trusted loved one who will follow the wishes of the person with terminal disease.  I am not saying the loved one should kill the person, just support the decision of the person to continue life no matter what or to be allowed to die with no extra measures or....in Oregon...with assistance.  You decide what is right for you and give that right to decide to those you love and respect even if you don't agree.  For any other than yourself....it is NOT your choice.  We have laws to allow our animals....and criminals to have as humane a death as possible, but we somehow believe it is wrong to allow the same for ourselves and our loved ones.  There is something wrong with this .....
453873
That right has always been forfeited, when have we ever legally had the choice to die? Our pets do, but we do not. Its just the law. It doesnt stop anyone from doing it though, so what does it really matter. Love Heidi
336112
Always a hot point of contention this one!\nI do believe in euthanasia and it certainly would be a revolutionary day if it should ever get legalized.\nHowever, what a complicated issue to draw up legal guidelines for. How do you decide when a situation is hopeless and agonising enough to warrant 'assisted suicide'. And more importantly who decides for someone who is not able to respond?\nI think underlying this issue is 'western' (or christian secular) society's attitudes to death. Now I'm no anthropologist, but I think when you explore this issue extensively down to the very soul of the debate, death is something that we (western society) are ultimately terrified of. I think you will find there are other cultures in which 'death' and 'dying' are treated vastly differently.\nI certainly agree that euthanasia should be incorporated into our way of thinking. It is not 'playing God' nor is it being 'evil'. It is a merciful act of love of the greatest kind.
753106
Difficult to put an absolute age on it - some people are useful way past the age of 50, others are useless from the age of 15.\nBut why not voluntary Euthanasia - someone who's got nothing to live for but tea and Emmerdale, might "want" to take a trip to the other side, just to see if it's true, or not. But they're not allowed to.
53505
Well, first you learn how to use "spell check" on your computer, and you can look up these cultural issues on Yahoo or Google.  This was a practice many years ago, not on icebergs per se, but in old camps they would leave, or on the trails to new camps,and only by certain Alaskan Eskimo tribes.  Other tribes in other countries also have, and do, still practice a form of this, what they consider humane "euthanasia", often chosen by the elderly themselves.  I think a native Alaskan would provide more insight to this question as well.
907933
I don't know but I think there should be I don't understand why people with cancer etc. that want to end the pain can not legally choose to die by Doctor assisted suicide instead of suffering\nAlthough it is widely condoned around the world, only one nation, the Netherlands, has made physician-assisted suicide legal. In the United States, voters in five states initiated ballot measures to legalize it. All have failed, except for Oregon, where voters in 1994 approved the "Death with Dignity Act." That measure permit doctors to prescribe a lethal drug dose but not administer it and established rules to ensure patients seeking assisted suicide are mentally competent, in great pain and intent on ending their lives. Since the law took effect in 1997, more than 200 people have committed suicide with the aid of a physician, according to the Oregon Department of Human Services.\n\nYou can and should make a living will then you can choose to have no life saving devices like life support administered but these are not always followed
375021
Except for the poorest of third world countries, almost any  country in the world has some form of welfare implemented, either in the form of public healthcare, social security, or at least a retirement scheme, or a combination of these.\nSome countries tend to have more effective and protective welfare systems that others, however. (The US being among the worst in the first world, and the only industrialized nation that does not have a comprehensive public healthcare system.)
1153587
no  I don't believe  in euthanasia (assisted  suicide  )  were there is life there is  hope  .....and  don't think  it fair  on the  person  having to  assist  ..pain management  these  days  is getting  better  what if you helped someone to die and the next day there  was a cure...and to comparing  us to the animals .. Had  dog  with arthritis  everyone thought  I was cruel  to keep him alive  he was on pain management  would you like to be  put out of your misery   for that don't think  so  ...but it could happen  ...don't think anyone  really want  to die  ...but hope I never in that situation   so  really does my opinion  count  ..