Book Vs Film: The Clockwork Orange

harbour Vs Film The Clockwork OrangeGlenn DW lead tell us aroundthing about the record throw hence we pull up stakes give you a short summary of the pass enunciate, then I will give you almost information about the author. after that glenn VH show us about differences amidst the book and the photographic film. And for odditying we will show you a fragment.We be going to discuss the book and the movie A Clockwork Orange.The first thing we want to prescribe, is that the book is very sturdy to pack. at that consecrate be a lot of hard haggling in it and Alex and his three friends speak a dialect, called nadsat. Its the teen suppurate vocabulary of the future. Glenn Vanhaeren also translate the book in Dutch and it was also very difficult to read according to him, until now in Dutch. because they use a lot of words that nobody chthonianstands. In the Dutch version of the book is a angle of dip with all the explanations of these words, in the English version in t hat honour isnt. A a couple of(prenominal) examplesTo viddy is to seeA droog is a friendShort summaryA clockwork orange is a horizontal surface about a teenaged teenager traced Alex living in near-future England. Alex leads a petite gang of teenage criminals, Dim, Pete, and Georgie atomic number 18 the other members. They do things like robbing and beating men and raping women. Alex and his friends s drop a lined a lot of their time at the Korova Milkbar, thats an establishment that serves milk laced with drugs, such(prenominal)(prenominal) milk is called Milk-plus. Alex begins his narrative from the Milk bar, where the boys sit around drinking. When Alex and his gang h all overage the bar, they go on a crime. Their last crime was when they broke into an experienced womans house. She calls the police, and before Alex rat get away, Dim hits him in the eye with a chain and runs away with the others. The police found Alex on the ground and repel him to their office, wher e he after heard that the woman he beat and ravaged during the earlier robbery has died. Now hes become a murderer.Alex is sentenced to fourteen eld in prison. He befriends the prison chaplain, who nonices Alexs interest in the Bible. The chaplain lets Alex read in the chapel while listening to classical music, because Alex likes classical music. On cardinal day Alex is selected as the first footdidate for an experimental treatment called Ludovicos Technique, a form of brainwashing that incorporates associative learning. After cosmos injected with a content that makes him dreadfully sick, the doctors force Alex to watch exceedingly violent movies. In this way, Alex comes to touch on violence with the nausea and headaches he experiences from the shot. The solve takes two weeks to complete. After this process Alex fuel no longer enjoy classical music, which he has evermore associated with violence.After two age in prison, Alex is released, a harmless charitable creation incapable of vicious acts. Soon, however, Alex finds hes not all harmless solely also defenceless, as his earlier victims begin to take revenge on him. His old friend Dim and an old enemy named truncheonboy argon two police officers now, and they take the opportunity to settle old scores. They drive him to a field in the country, beat him, and leave him in the rain. When they leave him Alex goes to a nearby cottage and knocks on the door, begging for help. The man living there lets him in and gives him food and a room for the night. Alex recognizes him from two years ag one(a) as the man whose wife he dishonor, merely the man does not recognize Alex. This man, F. Alexander, is a indemnity-making dissident. When he hears Alexs story, he thinks he can use Alex to incite public outrage against the State. He and three of his colleagues beat a plan for Alex to make several public appearances. When they be speechmaking to each other He berates the men innadsat, which arouses the suspicion of F. Alexander, who gloss over remembers the strange language spoken by the teenagers who raped his wife. Based on F. Alexanders suspicion, the men diverge their plans. They lock Alex in an apartment and fritter away classical music through the wall, hoping to drive Alex to suicide so they can blame the government. Alex does, in fact, hurl himself out of an attic window, but the flux doesnt kill him. While he lies in the hospital, unconscious, a policy-making p be ensues, but the current administration survives. State doctors undo Ludovicos Technique and be restored Alexs old vicious self in exchange for Alexs endorsement.The author livelinessAnthony bourgeois was an English author he was borne in Manchester in 1917 and died in London in 1993. His sister Muriel died in 1918 Four days subsequently his mother Elizabeth died at the age of 30 on November 1918, Burgess was one year old. After the expiry of his mother, Burgess was raised by his aunt, because his dad dy was unable to raise him.You could say that Burgess hasnt had a normal youth. Burgess did military service during WW II. He left the army in 1946, and became teacher.In 1954, Burgess joined the British Colonial Service as a teacher. But most of his time, he wrote and worked at his novels.At his finish he was a multi-millionaire, leaving a Europe-wide property portfolio of houses and apartments.WorkHis real name is John Burgess Wilson, but he published under the pen name Anthony Burgess. In total, Burgess wrote more than ten novels. He wasnt only a novel writer, he also wrote screenplays (eg. The Spy Who Loved Me, a James Bond movie). Except from being active in the military personnel of literacy, Burgess was also musician and composed regularly. Several of his pieces were broadcast during his lifetime on BBC Radio. He wrote The Clockwork orange in 1962. This is Burgess most famous novel. The film version of A Clockwork orange was released in 1971.2) The novel principal(prenomin al) ThemeBurgess believed that the freedom to choose is the big human attribute, This tone provides the central argument of A Clockwork Orange, where Alex moldiness follow the Ludovico treatment. When the State removes Alexs indicant to choose his own moral course of action, Alex becomes nothing more than a thing.The chaplain, the novels clearest advocate for Christian morals, addresses the dangers of Alexs Reclamation Treatment when he tells Alex that goodness is somewhatthing chosen.CharactersThe principal(prenominal) reference work of The Clockwork Orange is Alex. He is the anti-hero of the novel. Alex likes to name himself Alexander the Large this was later the basis for Alexs claimed surname De Large in the 1971 film. Alex is the leader of a gang, the channelise other member of his gang are George, Pete and Dim.The rival of Alex (and his gang) is Billyboy. Billyboy also nonpluss a gang, these two gangs lots fight with each other.Dr. Brodsky is a doctor who is the brea k down of the Ludovico technique. There is also another doctor, Dr. Branom. This is Brodskys colleague and co-founder of the Ludovico technique. He appears friendly towards Alex at first, before forcing him into the theatre to be psychologically tortured.another(prenominal) fundamental character in the novel is the prison chaplain. This is the only character who is truly relate about Alexs welfareThere are m each other, rather small characters. E.g. The people who are terrorized by Alex and his gang.3) Book vs FilmDifferencesAgeThere are plenty differences between the book and the film. One of the big differences is the age of the characters. In the book the characters are younger as the characters in the film. I will give you two specific examples of these differences. The girl that is about to be raped by Billy Boys gang is ten years old in the book while looking at the film it is a young woman which is about to be raped by Billy Boys. After meeting two ten-year-old girls named Marty and Sonietta in a record shop, Alex takes household these girls and rapes them. This happens in the Book but in the film, the girls are about 14 years old.Although these differences dont change the story or the meaning of the story, they do change the way you look at the story. If you would see a ten-year-old girl which is being raped by a 15 year old young man, who looks like a man of at least 18 years old in my opinion, it is not realistic enough. Unlike a film, a book it is not being visualised for you and so you dont see it. and so its shocking to read that this girl is so young.EndingThe ending of the story is also different between the book and the film because the last chapter, which is chapter 21, of the book was not filmed. In this chapter, Alex meets Pete. That was the third member of the original gang. Alex realises that he wishes to do the same(p), but his violence was an unavoidable product of his youth. The film is ending with a outlook where you see a naked g irl that is being raped and Alex saying I was cured, all right.Overall there are some differences but they involve almost no warp on the story. virtually of the differences are just some small details. The differences in age are only improving the story and the differences in the music cant even gestate any influence because you cant hear music when you are reading a book. Although both endings are different the almost say the same and that is that Alex wants to change but because of his violent childhood he will never be completely cured.Crucial SceneThe scene takes place just before Alex is released. The Ludovico threatment has ended and it has worked. In a short video display the doctors want to show what they archieved.(show part of movie from minute 81 - 86)(read book pg. 93 95 all of us)ConclusionThe book is hard to read, as mentioned before. The movie of the book is excellent, each chapter in the book is a scene in the movie. Although, there is a lot of explicit content in the movie, the story is good and there is a message in it. convey you for your attention mercy killing in Australia Arguments For and Againsteuthanasia in Australia Arguments For and AgainstMcKenzie MavisoResearch arguments for and against Euthanasia in Australia. Is it likely to be decriminalised in the future or not? By what rationale?Innovations and technologies in checkup sciences throughout the history have counseled primarily on disease baffleions to achieve better wellness outcomes. However, physicians are often confronted with extreme challenges in life-and-death circumstances, particularly with patients who are distraint from extend and debilitating illnesses. To alleviate such scurvy, mercy killing or physician-assisted death is sometimes considered upon request from patients. While it re chief(prenominal)s a globally controversial growth in aesculapian manage, it is performed wakelessly in some countries as an optional checkup intervention. This essay w ill examine the main arguments for and against the rehearse of mercy killing in Australia. It will then manage that mercy killing is not likely be permitd because of strong oppositions relating to aesculapian code of ethics, political objections and legal arbiter system perspectives.Therapeutic interventions for patients suffering from chronic and elongated debilitating illnesses can be challenging in medical exam practice. With the focus to provide best possible intervention, physicians often consider various interventions for patients to disgorge an end to pain and suffering. In some cases, patients who are diagnosed with incurable illnesses, such as cancer, which often deals to its destroy state can be unbearable for them and their family members (Frost, Sinha, Gilbert, 2014). Similarly, in such difficult situations, euthanasia is often considered upon the request of the patients to end life intentionally from their wretched health conditions. Euthanasia, a Greek word meaning a good or gentle death whereby a patient has control over death and is often viewed as a medical intervention performed by physicians to end life (Boudreau Somerville, 2014 Devakirubai Gnanadurai, 2014 Starr, 2014). Furthermore, Levy, et al., (2013) explain that it can be active in order to actively end a life, while passive is based on the turn suspension of medical treatments to hasten death. Euthanasia can also be performed as volunteer(prenominal) upon patients request, or involuntary without the permission of the patient (Adan, 2013). It is often considered upon the perception that the debilitating condition is certain to suffer extremely, and that this suffering can only be resolved by euthanasia upon the patients consent. For instance, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Oregon in the United States (US) have legitimate control measures for physician-assisted death, particularly by considering patients conditions and natural selections of misgiving (Levet t, 2011 Pereira, 2011). Thus, euthanasia is often conducted under specific situations when the devastating illness prevails over the health of patients that causes unbearable discomforts and sufferings.There are two direct backgrounds that designate physicians to perform euthanasia in relation to patients myopic health status. Firstly, shore leave in patients are perceived as important and need to be recognized in any health bearing practice. Autonomy is described as an individual with full self-control over mind, body and capable of making critical decisions and choices (Frost, et al., 2014). Obviously, patients are primary decision-makers that have the rights to access health care services where appropriate. Respect for autonomy thus, is considered as a main reason in health care to pass on patients to have complete control when making decisions for euthanasia (Sjostrand, Helgesson, Eriksson, Juth, 2013). Furthermore, Ebrahimi, (2012) claims that arguments supporting eutha nasia are based on the concept of autonomy and self-de final result enabling patients to make critical decisions without impacting others. Conversely, physicians are to respect the rights of patient should a choice is made regarding medical care. For instance, in devastating medical situations when suffering becomes intolerable, autonomy must be ac noesisd for patients requesting euthanasia intervention (Onwuteaka-Philipsen, et al., 2010 Trankle, 2014). As a result, recognizing the autonomy that lead to make critical choices and decisions relating to poor illnesses are often crucial during the course of care for both physicians and the patients.Secondly, constant pain and suffering experienced by patients with particular debilitating illness is another primary reason supporting the argument for euthanasia or physician-assisted death. Prolonged discomforts and sufferings have always been the basis for advocates in favour for legalization. Any remediation measures administered to pa tients must not be focused only on recovery processes, but also to enhance reliefs and comforts that are revealed in the sufferings (Lavoie, et al., 2014 Kucharska, 2013). In the same way, Frost, et al., (2014) maintain that to avoid terrible pain and suffering is an obvious recitation why euthanasia whitethorn be justified. Although, suffering is a main reason used to explain euthanasia, Karlsson, Milberg and Strang (2012) further claim that patients with anticipatory fears, sufferings, and misgiving in relation to the continuity of treatments often contemplate on this intervention. Providing therapeutic care to patients who are struggling amidst their illnesses can be challenging, but for some patients, physician-assisted death is a merciful and honourable act that relieves immoderate suffering (Boudreau Somerville, 2014). Nevertheless, Devakirubai and Gnanadurai (2014) argue that pain is not the only reason for some patients with poor prognosis requesting death, but often sym ptoms that may facilitate unbearable experiences such as persistent vomiting, incontinence, fatigue, discomfort and paralysis may also influence request for euthanasia. Therefore, patients who are undergoing extreme sufferings to the extent of desiring for euthanasia deserve consented death, and it is physicians legal obligation to fulfil a desired intervention within their sphere of practice.Although euthanasia is regarded as an alternative treatment in certain prolonged illnesses, there are several main arguments that contend this medical intervention. These arguments against euthanasia are established due to the following reasons medical code of ethics, political objections, and legal justness system. First of all, medical ethics often modify medical professionals to provide care within the s mete out of their practice without causing harm to patients, instead assist them to achieve optimal health benefits. Myers (2014) claims that medical ethics are often determined by how p hysicians assist patients to cope with preventive and curative treatments during the practice. In every aspect of health care, physicians are to protect their patients and provide care that is based on mutual swear and authorization that do not interfere with their code of ethics. In addition, physician-patient relationship is built on common trust, in which physicians expertise and knowledge are fully exercised to improve patients wellbeing without prejudice and negligence (Myers, 2014 Malpas, et al., 2014). However, purposeful termination of life for patients suffering from net illnesses, may undermine trust and confidence of physicians, and eventually may limit the protection offered to patients during the care (MacLeod, et al., 2012 Doyal Doyal, 2001). De bitterness devastating health conditions, medical ethics should not be neglected during medical interventions, and focused on achieving satisfactory health outcomes for patients. Therefore, medical practices that undermines the value of patients health rights and wishes can be regarded as unethical within medical context.Another argument focuses on political objections in relation to euthanasia. Although, in some countries, legislative reforms have been passed by the government to permit euthanasia, its intervention is associated with a strong political agenda opposing its practice within the medical landscape, such as in Australia. For example, the Northern Territory Legislative crowd approved the properlys of the Terminally Ill Act in 1995, was aimed to assist terminally ill patients the right to request voluntary euthanasia (Nicol, Tiedemann, Valiquet, 2013). Unfortunately, the bill has triggered intense criticism and was condemned by the national parliament for several reasons. One of the reason as being culturally unacceptable, particularly for elderly indigenous pursuance medical assistance (Kerridge Mitchell, 1996). This means that such law will prevent indigenous elderly population to se ek appropriate care, and would eventually disclaim them from accessing basic health services. Another main reason that opposes the bill to legalise euthanasia was the firm opposition from conservative liberals and key members of Labors right-faction in federal parliament, and that politicians need to have adequate information and knowledge in order to make good public policy (Plumb, 2014). A well-informed and collective decisions are of high importance to provide hardheaded legislative policies for euthanasia. Regardless of overwhelming public support to permit euthanasia, Trankle (2014) affirms that it has remained outlawed in Australia since the bill was dismissed. Furthermore, Plumb, (2014) argues that medical and legal experts are against its legitimacy, and although, attempts to legalise the practice in South Australia and Tasmania are apparent, the law on voluntary euthanasia is throttle for changes in the future. Besides, professional organizations such as the Australian aesculapian Association (AMA) does not have a strong position regarding bills on euthanasia consequently of different views and opinions shown from medical practitioners. This has also made the federal parliament to provide rationales that rejected the likelihood to legalise euthanasia in Australia (Plumb, 2014 Nicol, et al., 2013). Legalising euthanasia would likely to result in serious effects by changing medical practice, and that would affect physicians clinical roles. The law against euthanasia even-tempered remains and thus, it is unlikely to be decriminalised in the future.The other argument is that the deliberate termination of life due to prolonged medical condition may be unethical and against criminal laws. Most importantly, life must be valued and assisting death for terminally ill patients would require legal justice systems to be effected. According to Norwood, Kimsma and Battin (2009), physicians who conduct euthanasia would eventually lead to patients being killed against their will. In addition, active intervention which has a primary intention of killing, patronage the patients consent is a criminal offence and is a homicide (McLellan, 2013 Ebrahimi, 2012). Similarly, MacLeod, Wilson, and Malpas (2012) claim that assisting in death with or without consent and regardless of the medical situation is a crime. , because of the integral value of human life. Furthermore, Plumb (2014) claims that euthanasia is not likely to be legalised, it is against criminal law and physicians must argue in the court that their conduct was reasonable. Often killing an poverty-stricken human life is ethically wrong in itself thereby respect awarded to human lives would be undermined (Kucharska, 2013 Varelius, 2013). Therefore, debilitating illnesses leading to death should be judge as a natural event, rather than prematurely instigated by any medical interventions.Furthermore, arguments for and against euthanasia have continued to persist controversially in pub lic, medical and justice sectors. These arguments have led to slippery slope issues, especially in relation to patients who are suffering from devastating health conditions. It has been argued that assisting death to patients with undergoing sufferings would mean setting precedence and increasing the rate for unnecessary death (Shah Mushtaq, 2014). Despite these arguments, some countries have certain laws that permit euthanasia, particularly for patients with terminal health status. For instance, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg have guidelines and procedures established that specifically allow euthanasia with respect to their legal system (Pereira, 2011). In addition, the State of Oregon in the United States (US) has passed Death with Dignity Act to conduct euthanasia under strict criteria, considering patients consent (Blakely Carson, 2013). This law has enabled Oregon the legal responsibilities for physician-assisted death. However, legalising euthanasia in Australia will no t likely to benefit all patients, but would continue to spark relevant arguments from some medical professionals, the federal parliament, and legal justice systems. According to Plumb (2014) there are controversies challenging the proposed legislation for euthanasia, and competent evidence is needed to make reasonable decisions. Therefore, the possibility of legalising physician-assisted death is seemed limited in the future as a result of differing views shown in parliamentary debates.To conclude, euthanasia still remains as a debatable issue around the world. It has generated serious discussions within the public, medical practice, politics and legal justice system. Although, it was considered an alternative medical intervention, general arguments against its legality seem to focus on undermining the patient-physician trust and confidence, thereby altering the integrity of medical ethics. Moreover, medical practice that have been motivated by empathetic care, reluctance to amend and pass off bills with respect for human dignity, and considering euthanasia as a criminal plague have limited the probability of decriminalisation in Australia. In spite of strong opposition on euthanasia, a collaborative and practical policy frameworks on palliative and end-of-life care are therefore, necessarily required from the health care system, the federal government, and the legal justice system to strengthen and sentry go medical practice.Word Counts 2025ReferencesAdan, M. (2013). Euthanasia Whose Right is it Anyway? Ohio State undergraduate Review, 1-9. Retrieved from http//works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001context=muna_adanBlakely, B., Carson, L. (2013). What Can Oregon Teach Australia about Dying? diary of government activity and Law, 6(2), 30-47. doihttp//dx.doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v6n2p30Boudreau, D. J., Somerville, M. A. (2014). Euthanasia and support self-destruction A Phycicians Ethicists Perspectives. medicolegal Bioethics, 4, 1-12. doihttp/ /dx.doi.org/10.2147/MB.S59303Devakirubai, E., Gnanadurai, A. (2014). Euthanasia An Overview with Indian Nursing Perspective. Asian J. Nursing nurture Research, 4(1), 56-60. Retrieved from http//www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijorajnervolume=4issue=1article=012Doyal, L., Doyal, L. (2001). Why Active Euthanasia and Physician support Suicide Should be Legalised. BMJ, 323, 1079-1080. Retrieved from http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121585/pdf/1079.pdfEbrahimi, N. (2012). The Ethics of Euthanasia. Australian aesculapian Student Journal, 3(1), 73-75. Retrieved from http//www.amsj.org/archives/2066Frost, T. D., Sinha, D., Gilbert, J. B. (2014). Should Assisted Dying be Legalised? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 9, 1-6. doihttp//dx.doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-9-3Karlsson, M., Milberg, A., Strang, P. (2012). Suffering and Euthanasia A Qualitative Study of Dying Cancer Patients Perspectives. Supportive anxiety in Cancer, 20(5), 1065-1071. doihttp//d x.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-011-1156-9Kerridge, I. H., Mitchell, K. R. (1996). The Legislation of Active voluntary Euthanasia in Australia Will the Slippery position Prove Fatal? Journal of Medical Ethics, 22, 273-278. doihttp//dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.22.5.273Kucharska, E. (2013). Euthanasia Is it a Murder or Charity? clinical Perspective. E-Theologos, 4(1), 97-108. doihttp//dx.doi.org/10.2478/etheo-2013-0009Lavoie, M., Godin, G., Vezina-Im, L.-A., Blondeau, D., Martineau, I., Roy, L. (2014). Effect of Knowing Patients Wishes and health Profession on Euthanasia. moderating Care Medicine, 4(1), 1-6. doihttp//dx.doi.org/10.4172/2165-7386.1000169Levett, C. (2011). Dying with Dignity The Case for End of spiritedness Choices. Australian Nursing Journal, 11(8), 48. Retrieved from http//search.proquest.com/docview/855629200?accountid=10382Levy, T. B., Azar, S., Huberfeld, R., Siegel, A. M., Strous, R. D. (2013). Attitudes towards Euthanasia Assisted Suicide A Compasrison between Ps ychiatrists other Psycicians. Bioethics, 27(7), 402-408. doihttp//dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01968.xMacLeod, R. D., Wilson, D. M., Malpas, P. (2012). Assisted or Hastened Death The Healthcare Practitioners Dilemma. planetary Journal of Health Science, 4(6), 87-98. Retrieved from http//search.proquest.com/docview/1081341961?accountid=10382Malpas, J. P., Wilson, M. K., Rae, N., Johnson, M. (2014). Why do older people oppose physician-assisted dying? A Qualitative Study. Palliative Medicine, 28(4), 352-359. doihttp//dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269216313511284McLellan, I. (2013). The End of emotional state Issues Part 2. Indian Journal of Respiratory Care, 2(2), 258-261.Myers, J. (2014). Medical Ethics scene is the Key Word. International Journal of Clinical Medicine, 5, 1030-1045. doihttp//dx.doi.org/10.4236/ijcm.2014.516134Nicol, J., Tiedemann, M., Valiquet, D. (2013). Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide International Experiences. Library of Parliament, 14-15. Retrieved from http //www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/2011-67-e.pdfNorwood, F., Kimsma, G., Battin, M. P. (2009). Vulnerability and the Slipery Slope at the End-of- liveliness A Qualitative Study of Euthanasia, General Practice and bag Death in The Netherlands. Oxford Journals, 472-480. doihttp//dx.doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmp065Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Rurup, M. L., Pasman, H., Roseline, W., van der, A. H. (2010, July). The Last Phase of Life Who Requests and Who Recieves Euthanasia or Physician-assisted Suicide? Medical Care, 48(7), 596-603. doihttp//dx.doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181dbea75Pereira, J. (2011). Legalizing Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide The Illusion of Safeguards and Controls. Current Oncology, 18(2), 38-45. Retrieved from http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/Plumb, A. (2014). The Future of Euthanasia Politics in the Australian State Parliaments. Australian Parliamentary Review, 29(1), 67-86. Retrieved from http//search.informit.com.au/documentSummarydn= 513534504481857res=IELHSSShah, A., Mushtaq, A. (2014). The Right to Live or Die? A Perspective on Voluntary Euthanasia. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 30(5), 1159-1160. doihttp//dx.doi.org/10.12669/pjms.305.5777Sjostrand, M., Helgesson, G., Eriksson, S., Juth, N. (2013). Autonomy-based Arguments Against Physician-assisted Suicide Euthanasia A Critique. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 16(2), 225-230. doihttp//dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11019-9365-5Trankle, S. A. (2014). Decisions that Hasten Death Double Effect and the Experiences of Physicians in Australia. BMC Medical Ethics, 15(26), 1-15. doihttp//dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-26Varelius, J. (2013). Voluntary Euthanasia, Physician-assisted Suicide, and the Right to Do Wrong. HEC Forum, 25(3), 229-243. doihttp//dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10730-013-9208-21