This article compares, contrasts, and examines the rights of citizens in the Northern Territory of Australia regarding euthanasia relative to the rights of Japanese citizens pertaining to euthanasia as detailed in the Japanese Courts. This article further explains the methods the Northern Territory attempted to educate its citizens on the newly granted rights related to euthanasia. Although Australia's Northern Territory Rights of the Terminally III Act lasted a relatively short time at nine months, its societal impact and controversy swept across the Australian sub - continent and, to a small extent, spilled into the issues driving the euthanasia debate in Japan. Even now with the repeal of the Act, the controversy over euthanasia is not concluded and still remains a central societal issue. During its short tenure, four terminal patients attempted to utilize the act to commit euthanasia legitimately. Immediately following the attempted practical use of the act by these four patients, the moral and legal legitimacy of the law was cast into dispute. Issues regarding the quality of life, definitions of life, and general religious mores were brought into sharp focus. New medical technology applied to these four patients and in general has further dramatically affected the debate over euthanasia. Old definitions regarding life and death are unwieldy, difficult, and sometimes improssible to apply while new definitions must be developed and grappled with within a framework of a legal, religious, and cultural viewpoint. With the extensive prolongation of life through medical advances, prolonged suffering has come to the fore as a major moral issue that cannot be ignored. Debated over the mental agony caused by a terminal illness and its role in determining acceptable standards for euthanasia may further spill into Japan. The Japanese debate over "mental agony" will, undoubtedly, be driven by its own unique cultural perspectives which may potentially lead to alternate results. In general euthanasia, is not acceptable by most for various moral and religious reasons. Althoush the right to terminate one's own life is largely borne by the individual patient, society weighs its final hand in the process. It is the opinion of this author that, in terms of a patient's dignity, it is important to respect the widhes of the individual directly affected by the pain, agony, expense and suffering involved in a terminal or severely debilitating condition. The patient is uniquely situated to make the determination to die. It is only the patient who can make the review of their own life experiences and the degree to which they can endure the invasive medical procedures which have extended the "dying process". The pain of living can be greater than the finality of death. As medical technology has dramatically changed the technical term of "living", society may need to adapt its social meaning of life and redevelop new ways of dealing with the final chapter of the living process.
View full abstract