Euthanasia

I identify what appears to be a "glaring" inconsistency between what Joseph Raz says on euthanasia in a 2012 lecture and what he says on well-being within his most celebrated book, The Morality of Freedom. There also appears to be a subtler inconsistency between what he says and his endorsement of H.L.A. Hart’s opposition to a definitional project.

I argue that Joseph Raz’s paper on euthanasia faces a problem of coherence with Joseph Raz’s paper addressing the question of “Why should I be moral?”.

In terminally ill individuals who would otherwise end their own lives, active voluntary euthanasia (AVE) can be seen as life-extending rather than life-shortening. Accordingly, AVE supports key pro-euthanasia arguments (appeals to autonomy and beneficence) and meets certain sanctity of life objections. This paper examines the extent to which a terminally ill individual’s wish to donate organs after death contributes to those life-extension arguments. It finds that, in a terminally ill individual who wishes to avoid experiencing life he considers to be (...) not worth living, and who also wishes to donate organs after death, AVE maximizes the likelihood that such donations will occur. The paper finds that the wish to donate organs strengthens the appeals to autonomy and beneficence, and fortifies the meeting of certain sanctity of life objections, achieved by life-extension arguments, and also generates appeals to justice that form novel life-extension arguments in favour of AVE in this context. (shrink)

This article argues in favour of voluntary active euthanasia in human beings on the grounds that we (society in general) perform euthanasia on valued companion animals when their suffering is considered great. I argue that suffering is a morally relevant criterion that should be considered in all cases (human and animal) of euthanasia. I further argue that human beings possess autonomy, a morally relevant difference to companion animals, that allows them to reason about their futures in a way that animals (...) cannot, which gives us more reason to grant euthanasia, if requested autonomously by terminally ill patients who are experiencing extreme suffering. I consider objections around the sanctity of human life and sufficient palliation. I argue that neither of these objections give sufficient reason to deny competent human beings euthanasia if autonomously requested. (shrink)

The increased prevalence of advanced‐stage chronic diseases has augmented the need for palliative care teams. In Colombia, although the legislation promotes palliative care development, people still die without receiving management from a palliative care team. In addition, judiciary regulations regarding euthanasia have generated public confusion and ethical conflicts among members of the palliative care teams. Therefore, this study aimed to perform a bioethical reflection on the relationship between palliative care and euthanasia supported by data on euthanasia requests in a palliative (...) care program. This reflection is based on retrospective and descriptive observational data, collected in two highly complex hospitals in Bogotá, Colombia. A total of 50 euthanasia requests were identified, of which 62% met the defined criteria, 16% did not, and 22% were not considered by the interdisciplinary committee for the right to die with dignity due to early death. All patients were treated and followed up by a palliative care team until their death. This study considered that palliative care could be a complement management for patients requesting euthanasia based on their experience by supporting the decision‐making, alleviating suffering, and providing emotional support in the last days of life. (shrink)

At the time of writing, a British Member of Parliament has just been suspended from his Party for posting a Tweet in which he compared the level of serious adverse events after vaccination for COVI...

Does each of us have the right to terminate our own existence if we so decide? Can we delegate this task to others? With what methods can we decide these questions? With Michele Carter, John Loughney, and Patrick Sullivan.

There is disagreement among physicians and medical ethicists on the precise goals of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (HPM). Some think that HPM's goals should differ from those of other branches of medicine and aim primarily at lessening pain, discomfort, and confusion; while others think that HPM's practices should, like all other branches of medicine, aim at promoting health. I take the latter position: using the ars moriendi to set a standard for what it means to die well, I argue that (...) if HPM's practices were to aim at mitigating suffering with little regard to promoting health, some patients would die worse deaths than if HPM's practices were to aim at health. According to the ars moriendi, flourishing at the end of one's life requires that one exercise her agency and pursue the goods most important to her. On this view, HPM's practices should promote patients’ health to enable them to pursue these goods. (shrink)

Background Euthanasia is a controversial practice in many countries. Since Spain’s Euthanasia Law came into effect on March 24, 2021, healthcare providers have faced a new challenge since they must inform patients, provide care, accompany them, and implement the law. It also represents a new stumbling block at universities, which must adapt to regulatory changes and educate future professionals accordingly. Little is known about the attitude of nursing students in Spain toward euthanasia since this law was implemented. Objective This study (...) aims to answer the following research questions: What is the attitude of nursing students toward euthanasia? What factors influence this attitude? Research design A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online questionnaire. Participants and research context The study population comprised all nursing students at a public university in Barcelona ( n = 444), Spain, during the 2022–2023 academic year. The validated Spanish version of the Euthanasia Attitude Scale was employed. A bivariate analysis was performed. Ethical considerations The university Ethics Committee (CEEAH 6247) approved this study. All participating students signed an informed consent form. Participation was voluntary, and data anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed. Results Two hundred and forty-four nursing students responded to the questionnaire. The mean total score was 79.64. Participants with religious beliefs presented lower scores, indicating a more negative attitude toward euthanasia. Participants in their second, third, or fourth year of the nursing degree scored higher, demonstrating a more positive attitude. Conclusions The attitude of nursing students toward euthanasia was remarkably positive. Working on ethical content during the degree course and clinical practice are factors that help to develop a more positive attitude. In addition, nursing education should encourage professional aspects to prevail over religious beliefs in euthanasia situations. (shrink)

Is it possible to donate unpaired vital organs, foreseeing but not intending one’s own death? We argue that this is indeed psychologically possible, and thus far agree with Charles Camosy and Joseph Vukov in their recent paper on “double effect donation.” Where we disagree with these authors is that we see double-effect donation not as a morally praiseworthy act akin to mar- tyrdom but as a morally impermissible act that necessarily disrespects human bodily integrity. Respect for bodily integrity goes beyond (...) avoiding the aim to kill; not all side effects of deliberate bodily interventions can be outweighed by intended benefits for another even if the subject fully consents. It is not any necessary intention to kill or harm another or oneself that makes lethal donation/harvesting illicit but the more immediate intention to accept or perform surgery on an (innocent) person combined with the foresight of lethal harm and no health-related good for him or her. Double-effect donation falls foul of the first condition of double-effect reasoning in that the immediate act is wrong in itself. We argue further that the wider effects of such don- ation would be socially disastrous and corrupting of the medical profession: doctors should retain a sense of nonnegotiable respect for bodily integrity even when they intervene on willing subjects for the benefit of others. (shrink)

Continuous deep sedation at the end of life is a practice that has been the topic of considerable ethical debate, for example surrounding its perceived similarity or dissimilarity with physician-assisted dying...

In opposing the legalization of physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia, Peter Harrell '02 in his April 3 column claims that the example of the Netherlands — so far the only country in the world where both of these practices take place openly and without fear of prosecution — shows that this would be a dangerous course to follow. But none of the evidence that he offers allows him to draw this conclusion.

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) holds centrality in many debates regarding psychiatric euthanasia. Among the strongest reasons cited by opponents of psychiatric euthanasia is the uncertainty behind the irremediability of psychiatric illnesses. According to this argument, conditions that cannot be considered irremediable imply that there are possible remedies that remain for the condition. If there are possible remedies that remain for the condition, then patients with that condition cannot be considered for access to euthanasia. I call this the irremediability requirement (IR). I (...) argue that patients with TRD can, indeed, meet the operationalisation of irremediability in the IR. This is because the irremediability it asks for is not some global or absolute irremediability, but rather a present irremediability based on the current state of medical science. I show this by considering irremediability relating to (1) possible future treatments and (2) not trying presently available alternative treatments. I extend Schuklenk nd van de Vathorst’s argument from parity to terminal malignancies, to show that (1) is an unreasonable expectation for all cases of euthanasia. Taking (2) as a more serious opponent to psychiatric euthanasia, I show how the IR, based on how it is presently operationalised, can be realistically applied to cases of TRD. I do this by further developing Tully’s argument on broad-sense treatment resistance with the robust empirical data from the STAR*D trials. If my argument from Tully’s is valid, then we have reasons to, again, seek parity between the operationalisations of irremediability in terminal malignancies and TRD. (shrink)

Background Nurses have an essential role in caring for end-of-life patients. Nevertheless, the nurse’s involvement in the passive euthanasia decision-making process is insufficient and lower than expected. Objectives To explore factors associated with nurses’ intention to be involved in non-treatment decisions (NTD) regarding passive euthanasia decision-making versus their involvement in the palliative care of patients requesting euthanasia, using the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) framework. Design A cross-sectional study utilizing a random sample. Participants and research context The study was conducted (...) in one of the largest hospitals in Israel among 125 nurses employed in internal and surgical care wards. Data was collected through face-to-face interviews between March and April 2019. Method A closed structured questionnaire was developed according to TPB instructions. A paired sample t test and two multiple hierarchical regressions were conducted. Variance explained (R2) and the significance of F change were calculated for each regression. The study used the STROBE statement guideline. Ethical considerations The study was approved by the hospital’s Helsinki Committee (#20.11.2017). Findings A paired sample t test revealed that nurses’ involvement in the palliative care of patients requesting passive euthanasia was significantly higher than in NTD regarding euthanasia. Regression analyses revealed that nurses’ position and attitudes explain their intention to be involved in decision-making; attitudes and perceived behavioral control explain nurses’ intention to be involved in the care of patients requesting euthanasia. Conclusions According to the TPB, nurses’ attitudes explained their intention to participate in decision-making regarding passive euthanasia. It is recommended to enhance open discussion of this complex issue to encourage nurses’ willingness to participate in NTD decision-making regarding euthanasia. (shrink)

My fundamental thesis is that Rachels dismisses the traditional Western account of the morality of killing without offering a viable replacement. In this regard, I will argue that the substitute account he offers is deficient in at least eight regards: (1) he fails to justify the foundational principle of utilitarianism, (2) he exposes preference utilitarianism to the same criticisms he lodges against classical utilitarianism, (3) he neglects to explain how precisely one performs the maximization procedure which preference utilitarianism requires, (4) (...) his account of the sanctity of life is subject to the very criticism he levels against the traditional position, (5) he cannot justify the exceptions he makes to his interpretation of the sanctity of life, (6) his account could easily be used to justify murder, (7) his embrace of autonomy as an ethical principle undermines his preference utilitarianism, and (8) he cannot maintain the moral identification of acts of killing and letting die. (shrink)

Philip Reed argues that laws that grant people access to euthanasia on the basis of terminal illness are discriminatory. In support of this claim, he offers an argument by analogy: it would be discriminatory to offer a person access to euthanasia because they are women or because they are disabled, as such restricted access would send the message ‘that life as a woman or as a disabled person is (very often) not worth living’. 1 And so it must also be (...) discriminatory to offer people access to euthanasia because they are terminally ill. Arguments by analogies are only as good as the analogies on which they are built. Having a terminal illness, I’m going to suggest, is not relevantly similar enough to either being disabled or being a member of an oppressed social group to make Reed’s claim compelling. Let’s explore each branch of the analogy in turn.... (shrink)

BackgroundRelatives have no formal position in the practice of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (EAS) according to Dutch legislation. However, research shows that physicians often involve relatives in EAS decision-making. It remains unclear why physicians do (not) want to involve relatives. Therefore, we examined how many physicians in the Netherlands involve relatives in EAS decision-making and explored reasons for (not) involving relatives and what involvement entails.MethodsIn a mixed-methods study, 746 physicians (33% response rate) completed a questionnaire, and 20 were interviewed. The (...) questionnaire included two statements on relatives’ involvement in EAS decision-making. Descriptive statistics were used, and multivariable logistic regression analyses to explore characteristics associated with involving relatives. In subsequent interviews, we explored physicians’ views on involving relatives in EAS decision-making. Interviews were thematically analysed.ResultsThe majority of physicians want to know relatives’ opinions about an EAS request (80%); a smaller group also takes these opinions into account in EAS decision-making (35%). Physicians who had ever received an explicit EAS request were more likely to want to know opinions and clinical specialists and elderly care physicians were more likely to take these opinions into account. In interviews, physicians mentioned several reasons for involving relatives: e.g. to give relatives space and help them in their acceptance, to tailor support, to be able to perform EAS in harmony, and to mediate in case of conflicting views. Furthermore, physicians explained that relatives’ opinions can influence the decision-making process but cannot be a decisive factor. If relatives oppose the EAS request, physicians find the process more difficult and try to mediate between patients and relatives by investigating relatives’ objections and providing appropriate information. Reasons for not taking relatives’ opinions into account include not wanting to undermine patient autonomy and protecting relatives from a potential burdensome decision.ConclusionsAlthough physicians know that relatives have no formal role, involving relatives in EAS decision-making is common practice in the Netherlands. Physicians consider this important as relatives need to continue with their lives and may need bereavement support. Additionally, physicians want to perform EAS in harmony with everyone involved. However, relatives’ opinions are not decisive. (shrink)

Consensual homicide remains a crime in jurisdictions where active voluntary euthanasia has been legalized. At the same time, both jurisdictions, in which euthanasia is legal and those in which it is not, recognize that all patients (whether severely ill or not) have the right to refuse or withdraw medical treatment (including life-saving treatment). In this paper, I focus on the tensions between these three norms (the permission of active euthanasia, the permission to reject life-saving treatment, and the prohibition of consensual (...) homicide), assuming a justification of euthanasia based on the right to (personal) autonomy. I argue that the best way to provide a coherent account of these norms is to claim that patients have two distinct rights: the right to autonomy and the right to bodily integrity. This solution has some relevant implications for the discussion of the legalization of active euthanasia. (shrink)

One of the common domains in health care in which the concept of vulnerability is used is end-of-life care, including euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS). Since different uses and implications of the notion have been recognised in the literature on EAS, this paper aims to analyse them and reflect on who is the most vulnerable in the context of EAS. A prior exploratory review of the literature has served as a starting point for the discussion. We concluded that vulnerability is (...) a complex, multi-perspective and multi-layered concept, which implies the vulnerability of different stakeholders involved in EAS practices and vulnerability in different aspects of being human (i.e., physical, mental, moral, social and spiritual). A comprehensive understanding of the notion of vulnerability, which balances as well as complements the concept of autonomy, seems to be an indispensable element of the discourse on EAS. (shrink)

ABSTRACT:Most medical learned societies have endorsed both "equivalence" between all forms of withholding or withdrawing treatment and the "discontinuity" between euthanasia and practices to withhold or withdraw treatment. While the latter are morally acceptable insofar as they consist in letting the patient die, the former constitutes an illegitimate act of actively interfering with a patient's life. The moral distinction between killing and letting die has been hotly debated both conceptually and empirically, most notably by experimental philosophers, with inconclusive results. This (...) article employs a "revisionary" intuititionist perspective to discuss the results of a clinical ethics study about intensivists' perceptions of withhold or withdraw decisions. The results show that practitioners' moral experience is at odds with both the discontinuity and equivalence theses. This outcome allows us to revisit certain concepts, such as intention and causal relationship, that are prominent in the conceptual debate. Intensivists also regard end-of-life decisions as being on a scale from least to most active, and whether they regard active forms of end-of-life decisions as ethically acceptable depends on the overarching professional values they endorse: the patient's best chances of survival, or the patient's quality of life. (shrink)

Since at least the advent of Jack Kevorkian’s “suicide machine” the major argument against adopting physician-assisted suicide laws has been that they will lead us down a slippery slope to state-sa...

_The purpose _of this article is to find out whether philosophical and anthropological studies of human nature affect the legitimization of decisions about human life and death, using the example of a philosophical analysis of the problem of euthanasia. _Theoretical__ basis._ Philosophically and anthropologically based situational analysis in bioethics is chosen as the research methodology, which reveals the legitimation of euthanasia as a complex and highly responsible moral decision, which should be based on both the consideration of all the patient’s (...) special circumstances and the competent and adequate application of fundamental knowledge about the human being. _Originality._ From a philosophical point of view, it would be correct to legalize euthanasia, but under the condition of significantly limiting the cases of its application, clearly defining the conditions for its provision and strict control over its implementation. It is morally unacceptable to justify either murder or torture, so euthanasia appears as an attempt to avoid both at the same time. _Conclusions._ Specific solutions to practical problems often indicate the necessary direction for solving theoretical difficulties. Thus, making proper moral decisions about euthanasia requires reliance on fundamental knowledge about human beings, but at the same time it provides arguments "for" and "against" artificial termination of life. The basic principles of bioethics – autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and respect for the dignity of human life – serve as criteria for making balanced ethical decisions both in theory and in practice. These principles should be complemented by a coherent ethical, legal and philosophical position on euthanasia, which is achieved through legitimation procedures. Decisive for making a decision on euthanasia should be the strong desire of the patient himself. (shrink)

Relying on euthanasia’s definitionally derived set of propositions to provide its purpose, claims, and benefit, we obtain the core concept. Nonetheless, given its core concept, euthanasia is demonstrated to provide no benefit to the animal to justify its use. Euthanasia 1) cannot possibly, and therefore does not, end unbearable suffering, 2) it fails to hasten death, and 3) it, therefore, provides no perceptible relief to the patient. These findings are significant because the argument’s validity does not permit euthanasia to satisfy (...) its definitionally derived purpose, claims, or benefit on logical grounds. In other words, the argument is that as a form of legalized assisted suicide, euthanasia is wrong but not in the way principled arguments would suggest. Additionally, irrespective of euthanasia actually doing what it claims, if it is allowed to be provisioned, then euthanasia will affect vulnerable populations exactly like nonprincipled arguments claim. Therefore, despite sharing aspects with each type of argument in the extant literature, my argument against euthanasia can be categorized as neither principled nor nonprincipled, which makes it significant because it may be the first of a new category of argument against the concept and practice to enter the discourse on euthanasia. As a corollary, since we prove that unbearable suffering logically entails death, when it is authentic signifying that death is imminent, because euthanasia’s only purpose is to end unbearable suffering by inducing death, euthanasia is completely obviated. (shrink)

BackgroundThe Dutch Euthanasia Act applies to patients 12 years and older, which makes euthanasia for minors younger than 12 legally impossible. The issue under discussion specifically regards the capacity of minors to request euthanasia.ObjectiveGain insight in paediatric experts’ views about which criteria are important to assess capacity, from what age minors can meet those criteria, what an assessment procedure should look like and what role parents should have.MethodsA Delphi study with 16 experts (paediatricians, paediatric nurses and paediatric psychologists) who work (...) in Children Comfort Teams in Dutch academic hospitals. The questionnaire contained statements concerning criteria for capacity and procedural criteria. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement.ResultsThe experts agreed that five criteria for capacity, found in a previous literature study, are all important. They agreed that some children between ages 9 and 11 could meet all the criteria. Consensus was reached for the statements that the entire medical team should be involved in the decision making and that a second independent expert must assess the case. Experts agreed that the parents’ opinion is relevant and should always be taken into account, but it need not be decisive.ConclusionThis study shows that the age limit of 12 years in the Dutch Euthanasia Act is too strong according to paediatric experts. Letting go of the age limit or lowering the age limit combined with adequate capacity assessment for minors younger than 12 are options that should be discussed further. (shrink)

Background Doctors are increasingly faced with end-of-life decisions. Little is known about how medical students approach euthanasia. The objective of this study was to evaluate, among medical students and residents, the view on euthanasia and its variants; correlate such a view with empathy and religiosity/spiritualism; and with the stages of medical training in Brazil. Methods This is an exploratory cross-sectional study using an online questionnaire to be filled out on a voluntary basis among medical students and residents, consisting of: socio-demographic (...) data, an empathy questionnaire and questions with elaborate clinical cases that typify situations of the variants of euthanasia. Results From 1550 invitations, 273 volunteer participants responded (17.6%). The percentages of strong agreement/agreement on the concepts were: passive euthanasia (72.9%); active euthanasia (22.3%), orthothanasia (90.1%), dysthanasia (18.7%), assisted suicide (33%) and sedation (82.8%). Passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, dysthanasia and assisted suicide showed greater refusal with increasing length of medical training. Religious belief and degree of empathy did not significantly influence the opinion about the concepts. Strong agreement/agreement were: passive euthanasia (72.9%); active euthanasia (22.3%), orthothanasia (90.1%), dysthanasia (18.7%), assisted suicide (33%) and sedation (82.8%). Conclusions Passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, dysthanasia and assisted suicide showed greater refusal with increasing length of medical training. The external validation of our findings relies on the distinct legal, cultural, and religious frameworks found across various countries. (shrink)

Many books have been published about physician-assisted death. This book offers a comprehensive and in-depth examination of that subject, but it also extends the discussion to a broader range of end-of-life decisions including suicide, palliative care and sedation until death. In every jurisdiction that has laws permitting some kind of physician-assisted death, a central point of controversy is whether such assistance should only be available to dying patients, or to everyone who wants to end his life. The right to determine (...) the manner and time of one's own death, however, does not necessarily mean that physicians should be permitted to cooperate in ensuring a quick and peaceful death. In this book, Govert den Hartogh considers the fundamental and practical matters-including concrete issues of legal regulation-related to end-of life decision making. He proposes a two-tiered system. Everyone should have access to humane means of ending his life, if his decision to end it is voluntary, well-considered and durable. But doctors should only participate in a joint action of ending the patient's life on his request if they also are convinced of acting in the patient's best interests, in particular by ending intolerable and unrelievable suffering. And perhaps there is reason to restrict that second service to dying patients. The whole argument, however, depends on the extent to which, in both tiers of the system, we can design legal safeguards that will enable us to trust judgments about the requesting person's request and about his suffering. The book considers much new evidence in regard to this issue. What Kind of Death will appeal to researchers and advanced students working in bioethics, applied ethics, philosophy of law and health law. (shrink)

Several countries have legalized euthanasia on the basis of medically diagnosable suffering over the last decennial; the criteria to which they adhere differ. The topic of this article is euthanasia on the basis of existential suffering. This article presents a recent proposal to legalize euthanasia for people who experience such suffering and then discusses the issue of what the value of life may be, and whether the standard that life is normally something positive should be accepted. This provides the foundation (...) to answer the question of whether euthanasia on the basis of existential suffering should be allowed. (shrink)

As artist-in-residence at the Zen Hospice Project Guest House, Wendy MacNaughton experienced firsthand how difficult it is to know what to do when we're sharing final moments with a loved one. In this tenderly illustrated guide to saying goodbye, with a foreword by renowned physician and author BJ Miller, MacNaughton shows how to make sure those moments are meaningful. Using a framework of "the five things" taught to her by a professional caregiver, How to Say Goodbye provides a model for (...) having conversations of love, respect, and closure: with the words "I forgive you," "Please forgive me," "Thank you," "I love you," and "Goodbye," each oriented toward finding mutual peace and understanding when it matters most. How to Say Goodbye features MacNaughton's drawn-from-life artwork from both the Zen Hospice Project Guest House and her own aunt's bedside as she died, each paired with hospice caregivers' gentle advice on creating a positive sensory experience, acknowledging what you can't control, and sharing memories and gratitude. A poignant guide to embracing the present and deepening relationships during great vulnerability, How to Say Goodbye shows that just as there is no one right way to live a good life, there is no one right way to say goodbye. Whether confused, scared, or uncertain, this book is a starting point. (shrink)

We would like to respond to the article “Organ donation after euthanasia starting at home in a patient with multiple system atrophy Tajaâte et al., [2021] 22:120” on organ donation after euthanasia from home [ODEH]. Although we welcome the performance of ODEH, we would like to make some critical comments regarding the article, both in relation to factual inaccuracies and in terms of the vision expressed on this subject. In this letter we stress the protection of autonomy of vulnerable euthanasia (...) patients, we contradict the assumption of illegality, we question if the anesthesia method utilized is optimal and correct a mistake in regard to an article to which is referred of ourselves. (shrink)

Palliative Care Nursing: Caring for Suffering Patients explores the concept of suffering as it relates to nursing practice. This text helps practicing nurses and students define and recognize various aspects of suffering across the lifespan and within various patient populations while providing guidance in alleviating suffering. In addition, it examines spiritual and ethical perspectives on suffering and discusses how witnessing suffering impacts nurses' ability to assume the professional role. Further, the authors discuss ways nurses as witnesses to suffering can optimize (...) their own coping skills and facilitate personal growth. Rich in case studies, pictures, and reflections on nursing practice and life experiences, Palliative Care Nursing: Caring for Suffering Patients delves into key topics such as how to identify when a patient is suffering, whether they are coping, sources of coping facades, what to do to ease suffering, and how to convey the extent of suffering to members of the health care team.Palliative Care Nursing: Caring for Suffering Patients helps practicing nurses and students define and recognize various aspects of suffering across the lifespan and within various patient populations while providing guidance in alleviating suffering. (shrink)