Final rights: An international comparative study of euthanasia regulations and right-to-die issues

Euthanasia, at its most basic translation, simply means a "good death" or "dying well." The debates surrounding euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have focused on the wish for control and influence over the manner and timing of one's death. The basic premise contrasts maintaining personal dignity throughout the dying process and relieving severe pain effectuated by terminal illness, as opposed to warnings about the potential for abuse by physicians, family members, health insurance companies and society at large. These concerns are generally termed the "slippery slope" or "wedge" issues. In addition, the debate struggles with traditional religious doctrines, social mores and philosophical attitudes concerning the value and meaning of life, the redemptive virtues of suffering, and the moral and societal taboos against the act of suicide, assisting suicide or being directly involved in causing another individual's death. To examine death and dying divorced from their many sociocultural milieus would be meaningless and inappropriate. Endeavoring to obtain a premature death through euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is not solely the product of the progress that medical science has achieved; requests to hasten death also rely on the prevailing moral and political atmosphere of a society. As religion and religious institutions began to lose their guiding moral authority in society, laws piloting the conduct of individuals gradually grew more secular in nature, recognizing individual choice and personal freedoms. This dissertation examines several social indicators on an international scale, including the type of government or political infrastructure, form of legal system, dominant religion, existence of a health-care system and the life-expectancy rate to predict the liberalness or restrictiveness of the existing euthanasia and/or physician-assisted suicide regulation in a country. Special emphasis is placed on the examination of regulatory concerns in Columbia, Australia, The Netherlands, and the United States, where precedents in the euthanasia debate are being set. The prospect of legalization and the direction and future of the debate are also explored.