Unusual photos of models. Unusual appearance is much appreciated (22 photos)
On April 17, the press reported that the Federation Council was preparing a bill allowing euthanasia in Russia. The senators said that "such a bill has not been developed, its text does not exist," however, they acknowledged that requests were sent to the medical community to find out how relevant this problem is for our country.
Euthanasia, "good death" * or "legalized murder", has supporters and opponents. Politicians, doctors and seriously ill people give their arguments for and against.
Doctor, Head of the Department of Faculty Surgery of the Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Eduard Abdulkhaevich Gallyamov:
"Majority world scientists came to the conclusion that euthanasia does not contradict universal principles, but the final decision should belong to the patient himself, and in case of incompetence of the latter - to his relatives. I think this point of view is more humane. But I repeat, euthanasia is one of the tense dilemmas of bioethics, when in their own way compelling arguments for and against collide.
Len Doyal, retired professor of medical ethics and former member of the ethics committee of the British Medical Association:
“Physicians may not recognize this and pass off their actions as “alleviating the suffering of patients,” but the refusal to further support the biological existence of patients in an unconscious state is, from a moral point of view, equivalent to active euthanasia.
... "If doctors are able to decide on the inappropriateness of further maintenance of the life of incapacitated patients, since they believe that they have no reason to live, why put off their death without any reason?"
Deborah Annets, Executive Director of the English NGO Dignity in Dying:
"Death with Dignity believes that decisions to end life and treatment should be based on the conscious will of terminally ill people. ...People who are afraid of losing their legal capacity in the future can ensure the execution of their will by leaving an appropriate will."
Russian pediatric surgeon Stanislav Doletsky:
"Euthanasia, painless death is mercy, it is good. Have you ever seen the terrible torment and pain that many cancer patients, stroke patients, paralyzed people have to endure? Did you see, did you feel the pain of mothers who gave birth to a freak child, and a freak with an incurable pathology? If yes, you will understand me...
Chairman of the Moscow City Duma Commission on Legislation Alexander Semennikov:
“We define euthanasia as the killing of a terminally ill person at his request, committed out of compassion in order to save the patient from the painful suffering caused by the disease. And we believe that such an act cannot be qualified as premeditated murder".
Sociologist and public figure of China Zhao Gongmin
"I think that euthanasia is a 'merciful killing' - may be permitted in certain areas of our country to summarize experience.
"Against"
German physician and theologian Manfred Lutz:
... "The fact that today people in the polls are in favor of euthanasia is explained only by their fear of depending on tubes and IVs in the future. Of course, they can be understood, but still it is necessary to keep the taboo on killing. Removing taboos can have dire consequences for society."
... "The fear of being alone before death and the fear of pain is very great, but with the help of professional pain therapy, almost any pain can be dealt with."
German Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries:
"Last the step to death the patient must take only himself".
Vice Speaker State Duma RF V.V. Zhirinovsky:
"We will not be able to control the implementation of even the most impeccable law on euthanasia. Murders related to inheritance, real estate, with any personal gain, will receive legal cover. We will achieve only that increase in the number of murders".
Head Physician of the First Moscow Hospice Vera Millionshchikova:
"The media can present any solution to any problem in such a way that people become supporters of it. But if this problem affects you personally, you are unlikely to want to accept a "good death" at the hands of your neighbor. I believe that a person is born to live, therefore I am categorically negative about euthanasia."
Archpriest Alexander Makarov
“From the point of view of the church, euthanasia is suicide, which means it is an unforgivable sin. For a believer, even near-death suffering is good, because it is atonement for sins. Suicide is a step of desperation, a rejection of faith and God. And the hope for a miracle, that medicine will suddenly make a breakthrough, and a person will be saved, should always be.
Palliative** medicine specialist, doctor Elizaveta Glinka
“My personal opinion is expressed in three words: I am against euthanasia. There can be no certainty that some patient needs to be “turned off”. retreated - the patient stopped suffering from depression, wanted to live.In general, requests for euthanasia are extremely rare, and as a rule they are just a disguised request for help. There are no two identical patients, and it is impossible to develop one law for all.
Opinions of patients from one of the hospices:
Sasha, 42 years old. Moscow. Cancer of the left kidney, liver metastases. “I know about my diagnosis, they told me about the prognosis. All that is left in this life is mine. You don't have to kill me."
Kirill, 19 years old, Kyiv. Hip sarcoma, multiple metastases. "When I am not in pain, I think about not being discharged from the hospice. I will say that I am in pain because I'm calm and not afraid".
Mom of an 8 year old: We LIVE, UNDERSTAND?"
Mom and dad of a four-year-old child, the child has a brain tumor, coma. Aware of the forecast. " We are grateful for every minute with Masha. If they introduce a law on euthanasia, then let them come and kill us all at once"
Andrey, 36 years old, businessman, Moscow. Stomach cancer. " death penalty canceled, and we - to kill according to the law? Hide me. I want to live."
* Translated from Greek, "euthanasia" means "good death." For the first time, the term was used in the 16th century by the English philosopher Francis Bacon to mean "light", not associated with excruciating pain and suffering, death, which can also occur naturally. In the 19th century, euthanasia came to mean "killing a patient out of pity."
**Palliative medicine - symptomatic care for terminally ill patients, achieving the best quality of life for them.
Let us now briefly summarize the arguments and counterarguments of both supporters and opponents of euthanasia. Those who advocate euthanasia usually justify their position with the following arguments:
1. A person must be provided the right of self-determination, up to the point that om himself can choose whether to continue life or end it. The weakness of this argument is that the implementation of euthanasia in one way or another presupposes the participation of a doctor - and he also has the right to choose and, moreover, to refuse "participation in euthanasia, which will be a huge burden for him both morally and psychologically.
2. The person must be protected from cruel and inhuman treatment,
Indeed, if the patient has to endure severe and ongoing pain, a sense of compassion may also suggest such a way out as euthanasia. However, wouldn't this be evidence not only of the patient's condition, but also of the conditions of the clinic and how its staff works?
3. The person has the right to be an altruist.
This means that the suffering of the patient makes his relatives and in general those who are near his bed sympathize and suffer, as well as the fact that through euthanasia he will be able to save those financial resources that his relatives could use. He, finally, realizing the hopelessness of his situation, may want the efforts and resources that his treatment requires to be directed to another - to someone who can really be helped. A person, of course, has the right to be an altruist, but it does not follow from this, that he should deny the same right to others - relatives, medical staff, etc.
4. "Economic" argument. It is sometimes claimed that treatment and maintenance of the doomed takes a lot of money from society, which could be used more rationally by legalizing euthanasia. Apart from the fact that economic considerations are by no means always an acceptable argument when discussing moral problems, it is also necessary to note the following. This kind of argument is dangerously close to the considerations that guided the Nazis in their inhuman programs of "healing the nation." To this we can add that, according to some estimates, the real cost savings from the widespread introduction of active euthanasia would be vanishingly small.
Let us now turn to the arguments of the opponents of active euthanasia.
1. Active euthanasia is an attack on the lasting value that is human life. Not only in Christianity, but also in all other religious denominations and as one of the highest values is the sanctity of human life, and therefore suicide and euthanasia are seen as a violation of God's zero. Of course, for non-religious people, this argument will not be convincing. However, in fact, this value is deeply rooted in culture and is a very, very strong moral requirement, including for atheists, so if in some society such a requirement is violated en masse, this is evidence of its deep moral degradation. We all, of course, all too often hear of numerous situations in which this value is shamelessly trampled upon. But legalization any practice of destroying human lives (in our case, the practice of active euthanasia), that is, turning it into an accepted, sanctioned by society, is fraught with the deepest shock to the entire normative-value order, only thanks to the existence of which people continue to be people.
2. Opportunity diagnostic and prognostic error of the doctor. Before us is a fairly strong argument, so that where active euthanasia in one form or another is legalized, its implementation in each case requires independent confirmation of the original diagnosis and prognosis.
Opportunity the emergence of new drugs and treatments. Sometimes the hope for such a new remedy borders on belief in a miracle, but it is hardly reasonable to subject a terminally ill person or his loved ones to moral condemnation who believe in the possibility of a miracle. The effectiveness of this argument, by the way, is also manifested in the fact that often terminally ill people look for a last resort in turning to so-called "alternative" medicine.
Availability effective pain relievers. It can be objected that the use of such agents, unfortunately, is contraindicated for individual patients. In addition, at best, they relieve physical pain, but do not free the bedridden patient from the painful constant dependence on others.
Risk abuse by staff. It's about the fact that To If active euthanasia is legalized, medical personnel will be tempted to use it not so much on the basis of the interests and desires of the patient, but from other, much less humane, considerations. In the numerous discussions about euthanasia that flare up from time to time in our press, this argument is used, perhaps, more often than any other.
Argument "inclined plane". In a sense, it is close to the previous one. Its essence is as follows: as soon as euthanasia is legalized, then even if the law contains strict requirements for its practical implementation, in real life situations will constantly arise "on the verge" of legal requirements. Gradual minor deviations will erode the severity of the law and ultimately account will lead to the fact that uncontrolled processes will begin, so that euthanasia will be carried out not out of compassion, but in the name of completely different goals.
It should also take into account the special circumstance that makes it impossible to legalize active euthanasia in modern Russia. As we already know, supporters of active euthanasia insist that it is the realization of the patient's free will, his conscious and informed choice. Meanwhile, such a choice (let us recall Chapter 1) necessarily implies that the patient has accurate, objective information about the diagnosis and the tragic prognosis of the disease. The practice of Russian public health, however, is such that the concept of "holy lies" continues to prevail in it - as a rule, information is hidden from the patient. And this means that, in fact, Russian patients usually do not have the opportunity of free choice in cases where it makes sense to talk about euthanasia.
Not surprisingly, 51.5% and 44.8% Russian doctors at the age of 41-50 and 51-65, respectively, to the question of a sociological survey (1991-1992) “do you consider euthanasia acceptable?” answered “never thought about it” along with “yes” and “no” answer options. A positive response was given by 49% of doctors aged 21-30 years.
Attitude towards euthanasia
Euthanasia and the Hippocratic Oath
The idea of euthanasia at the end of the twentieth century is becoming more and more popular, along with the increased use of another important concept, the quality of life. The Hippocratic Oath in its traditional form contradicts the implementation of the idea of euthanasia.
Points for and against"
In Luxembourg, it is allowed to help terminally ill people die.
In Russia, both active and passive euthanasia is a crime and will qualify as premeditated murder in accordance with Part 1 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. When imposing a penalty on a person guilty of euthanasia (naturally, unless other reasons for deprivation of life are proven), a mitigating circumstance will be taken into account in accordance with paragraph "e" of Part 1 of Article 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, namely: the commission of a crime under compassion motive.
Euthanasia and politics
Socio-political activities aimed at convincing public opinion of the admissibility of euthanasia, that is, satisfying the request of a terminally ill patient to hasten his death by any actions or means, is carried out in many countries. Supporters of euthanasia argue their position with considerations of humanity, while opponents consider it to be the legalization of assistance in suicide. In some countries, such as, for example, in Australia, the promotion of euthanasia entails criminal penalties under the articles “incitement to suicide”, “assistance in suicide” and others. In some countries (Netherlands, Belgium) euthanasia is allowed by law.
Famous cases of euthanasia
- Hugo Claus
see also
- Animal euthanasia
- Euthanasia tourism
Notes
Literature
- Ardasheva N. A. Euthanasia as a method of artificial interruption of life: legal conditions // Ros. legal journal, 1996. - 1. - S. 71-80;
- Akopov V.I. Ethical, legal and medical problems of euthanasia // Medical Law and Ethics, 2000. - 1. - P. 47-55;
- Vorona V. A. The right to euthanasia as a warehouse of a person's right to life / V. A. Vorona // Law of Ukraine. -Kyiv, 2010, N 5.-S.199-205
- Dmitriev Yu. A. The constitutional right of a person in the Russian Federation to carry out euthanasia // Law and Politics, 2000. - 7. - P. 127-130;
- Dmitriev Yu. A., Shleneva E. V. The human right in the Russian Federation to carry out euthanasia // State and Law, 2000. - 11. - P. 52-59;
- Kapinus O. S. Euthanasia as a social and legal phenomenon: monograph. - M.: Bukvoed, 2006;
- Lavrin A.P. Chronicles of Charon. Encyclopedia of death. - N.: Siberian University Publishing House, 2009;
- Rybin V.A. Euthanasia. Medicine. Culture: Philosophical Foundations of the Modern Socio-Cultural Crisis in the Medical and Anthropological Aspect. 2009.
- Kapinus O. S. Euthanasia in the light of the right to life: a monograph. - M.: ID Cameron, 2006.
- J. Rachels"Active and passive euthanasia" // Ethical thought: Scientific publicist. reading. 1990.
- Foot F. Euthanasia // Philosophical Sciences. No. 6, 1990, p. 63-80
- Terry Pratchett. An open letter on euthanasia. Translation in LiveJournal
- Bykova S., Yudin B., Yasnaya L. Euthanasia: doctors' opinion. - "Man", No. 2, 1994, p. 148.
- "The right of a dying person to end life." - JAMA, October 1992, p. 48.
- B.G.Yudin
Links
- Euthanasia: the concept of euthanasia; history of euthanasia; library, articles, forum.
- Andrey Kuraev. Euthanasia is suicide?
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .
Synonyms:See what "Euthanasia" is in other dictionaries:
- (from Greek eu - good and thanatos - death) help at death, the art of a doctor to ease death for a dying person or hasten death in order to save a dying person from torment. The permissibility or inadmissibility of euthanasia is animatedly debated from the point of view of ethics ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
Euthanasia- (euthanasia; Greek eu good + thanatos death) deliberately accelerating the death of a terminally ill person in order to save him from suffering. The term was first used in the 16th century by the English philosopher Francis Bacon to refer to ... ... Encyclopedia of Newsmakers
Euthanasia- Euthanasia ♦ Euthanasie The etymological meaning of this word is – good death. In practice, it is used to denote a voluntarily accepted death through medical means and to end the suffering of a terminally ill person ... ... Philosophical Dictionary of Sponville
It is called the interruption of the life of an incurable patient, who is very suffering from his condition at his request or the desire of his relatives.
We can talk about euthanasia only in the case when the goal of the action is to bring the lethal outcome closer.
In the same case, if doctors prescribe therapy that alleviates the condition of the dying, but it leads to death, this is not called euthanasia.
Background
If we translate the word euthanasia"from Greek, it turns out" good death". The term was introduced in the sixteenth century Francis Bacon, but then this term meant, among other things, natural care without pain and suffering.Three centuries later, the word was given contemporary meaning, that is, deliverance from the life of a suffering patient out of compassion.
In Germany in the 1930s, the Nazis massacred hundreds of thousands of people being treated in insane asylums, calling it "euthanasia." This was done to "cleanse" the nation from waste. Then for a while the word was forgotten. But since the 70s of the twentieth century, the world has not stopped debating whether it is worth introducing official permission for euthanasia, whether it is humane. If we consider the attitude of the world community to the problem, it is rather negative.
The temptations of modernity
Medicine today is so developed that doctors are already intervening in the deep processes of the body's existence. For example, resuscitation can work wonders: prolong the life of an almost dead organism for a long time. Thus, the very concept of death already loses its meaning. In addition to the previously accepted criteria for death - cessation of the heart and lungs, one more was added - brain death.The patient's brain death is determined by a council of doctors - a resuscitator and a neurologist who has worked in their specialty for at least 5 years. Sometimes the council includes other doctors with experience. Participation in the consultation of doctors working in the field of transplantology is prohibited.
What if the board was wrong? Or wanted to be wrong?
In this case, stopping maintenance therapy is tantamount to killing the patient. After all, making a correct diagnosis is very difficult, and a mistake is always possible. Meaning people who are in a state of coma, it is completely impossible to say anything with certainty. In such a situation, doctors can prolong a person's life for as long as they like.
But is this necessary?
Sometimes it is necessary. For example, in America, for a decade and a half, the body of a patient with a dead brain “lived”. It was an experiment of doctors. It was terminated only after the intervention of relatives and litigation.
But in the former USSR, relatives and friends of party officials asked that actually dead people be “kept alive” in the intensive care unit under the apparatus for as long as possible. This made it possible to have access to various benefits - dachas, special shops.
Where is the line of reason in this matter? In fact, the patient's body was used and not allowed to die.
How humane is this?
Such facts emphasize only one thing - the main objective The doctor should be in mercy to the patient.
Difficult problem
From the point of view of philosophy, death is another step towards the comprehension of wisdom. A dying person must realize his role in life and understand why all this was necessary. Therefore, death cannot be artificially brought closer. Everyone must go through the entire path of personal development from beginning to end.According to some philosophical teachings, man is the eye of the cosmos, through people the cosmos plans and creates a model of the world. Therefore, the departure of a person from this world cannot be compared, for example, with the death of animals.
Many modern philosophers believe that the desire to die easier is connected with the unwillingness of people to think about the meaning of existence, which leads to the degradation of civilization.
According to the rules of medical ethics, the purpose of each doctor is to prolong life, prevent and cure diseases, alleviate the condition of the patient and help preserve the foundations of life. In the performance of his duties, the doctor must initially be guided by the interests of the patient. These rules are based on hippocratic oath, as well as on universal ethical standards. The doctor must follow the interests of the person, without dropping his professional dignity.
When it comes to euthanasia, the doctor's actions are completely contrary to the Hippocratic oath.
The history of this technique is as old as the history of mankind. Even the ancient healers argued about the possibility of such a "help" and did not find a common point of view.
Today's people have already weaned from pain and can hardly endure it. With the increase in life expectancy, very painful and severe conditions have become widespread, to which earlier people didn't even survive.
Thanks to the development of medicine, today people reach such a stage, for example, of oncological diseases, when the torment becomes unbearable. It is when metastases penetrate most organs that a person suffers from terrible pain and exhaustion of the body. For such patients, death is almost the only relief from suffering.
Although it is horrific, many doctors who perform artificial termination of life receive gratitude from loved ones of the deceased people. And most importantly, it is precisely many people who are exhausted by illnesses who are supporters of this method.
Unfortunately, the material world has made even the matter of dying a good profitable business. In some countries, for example, you can order a whole procedure with sad music and all the relevant paraphernalia of dying. The client can arrange the process to his liking, which costs a lot of money.
In America, there is a sect whose main theory is that the best thing a person can do in his life is to get maximum pleasure and then commit group suicide.
Arguments for"
1. Some believe that sometimes it is better to die than to expect death and be a heavy burden for your loved ones.2. The patient suffers himself and makes his relatives suffer, watching his torment.
3. Euthanasia is possible only if there is real control that prevents abuse by doctors and relatives.
Arguments against"
1. The idea of artificial interruption of human life is completely contrary to all religions and moral standards society.2. In some states, it is impossible today to ensure control over the procedure and prevent various abuses.
3. The diagnosis can be erroneous and a person who can still live long will die.
4. The patient is sometimes unable to adequately assess the condition and the possibility of a cure.
5. There is a risk that the patient will change his mind in last minutes and wants to live.
6. Unscrupulous doctors can take advantage of the opportunity.
Kinds
- active,
- Passive
passive form
Passive euthanasia refers to the termination of life-sustaining therapy. Sometimes such therapy is not even used.This practice is quite common among doctors. From a moral point of view, the option when treatment is not started is significantly different from the option when therapy is interrupted. When therapy is interrupted, the doctor bears a greater responsibility. But if the doctor does not prescribe maintenance therapy in fear that it will have to be interrupted, this can be even worse for the patient. Sometimes doctors are wrong, and supportive therapy bears fruit - a person becomes much better and his life is extended.
active form
Active euthanasia is special actions leading to the death of the patient. Most often, this is the introduction of a drug that causes the death of the patient.In turn, the active form is divided into:
- Sympathy killing in a very serious condition of the patient. In this case, the action can be committed by another person without the knowledge and consent of the patient,
- Voluntary active form,
- Suicide with the help of a doctor.
In which countries is it allowed?
The first country to officially allow active euthanasia was the Netherlands. Back in the early 80s of the twentieth century, this procedure was allowed here.In Belgium, it was allowed in 2002 and over the next year two hundred people took advantage of the right, a year later another three hundred and sixty.
According to some reports, in this country you can even buy a syringe with one dose of poison to kill a person. Such a set is sold only to doctors upon presentation of special documents. Not all pharmacies sell killing kits.
According to Belgian law, people over the age of 18 who have incurable ailments can “help” die. The doctor must obtain several written statements from the patient that the patient really wishes to die. About forty percent of the procedures are performed at home in patients.
Sweden allows active euthanasia in the form of physician-assisted suicide.
In the United States of America, permission to hasten the death of seriously ill patients exists with physicians in two states: Washington and Oregon.
In Russia, Poland, many CIS countries, Czech Republic, Greece, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia and many other countries ( not to mention the entire Islamic world) the procedure is prohibited and prosecuted. Although, in Lately news comes from many European countries about court decisions in favor of doctors who performed euthanasia.
Many states allow passive euthanasia: France, Hungary, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Germany, Spain.
There are disputes about this in the UK and Portugal.
Is the doctor's act murder?
Opponents of euthanasia recall the mass murders of people committed by the Nazis in the 30s of the twentieth century, called by the same term.
The attitude of scientists to the involuntary form of euthanasia is very different. After all, here we are talking about newborns, people in a vegetative state or incapacitated. Deciding their fate is a very heavy burden.
Society attitude
In medical circles, the attitude to the problem is heterogeneous. For example, a survey was conducted among Uzbek doctors on this topic, which showed: 30% are categorically against it, 9% believe that sometimes this method can be resorted to, 2.2% believe that if relatives of the patient ask, then this request must be granted. At the request of the patient himself, 16.5% would take this step. 38% refused to answer the question at all, stating that they had not had to deal with such cases.It was more difficult for female doctors to answer questions; among those who refused to answer, there were two and a half times more of them than men.
According to surveys conducted among doctors in Australia and the United States of America, about 40% are in favor of active euthanasia, approximately 60% were against the active form. And 99% of the participants are for the passive form.
According to Gallup, two-thirds of US residents believe that euthanasia should be legal.
Most Russians are quite tolerant of the idea of euthanasia, which cannot be said, for example, about the idea of creating organs for transplantation using genetic engineering.
at home
The Netherlands is one of the few countries where active euthanasia is allowed. Only specially licensed clinics are allowed to perform this procedure. These clinics have introduced a new service: killing at home. To do this, special teams are being created that, on call and according to special indications, will help terminally ill patients die.Not all doctors in the country are ready to provide this service to their patients. For such patients, a mobile team has been created. Not all doctors were delighted with such an innovation. Opponents believe that only the attending doctor can really determine whether the patient can still be helped or nothing but a lethal injection will work.
By the way, according to statistics, about half of the procedures are performed at home in patients. It should be borne in mind that many who resort to euthanasia are in a motionless state for many years.
Church attitude
Christianity as a whole does not support the idea of euthanasia, because according to this religion, human life is the creation of the Lord. In this connection, people themselves cannot manage life even with a very strong desire. From the point of view of the church, it is the very death of a person that is the stage for the formation of his soul. Therefore, it is impossible to interfere in the process. Relatives should perceive torment and death as a feat for the sake of good and future generations, just as Jesus Christ suffered for the sake of people.The Catholic Church also has a negative attitude towards euthanasia, calling it a violation of God's law. Despite the adoption of a resolution condemning euthanasia, some Catholic and Christian priests raise the issue of the possibility of exercising the right to die if a person is terminally and seriously ill.
From the point of view of the Muslim world, euthanasia is a great sin, since only Allah can give life or death. But here they are calm about not supporting human life by artificial methods.
Adherents of Buddhism cannot develop a more or less general point of view on this problem. Since if a person wants to die prematurely, this indicates the predominance of the body over the spirit.
Criminal liability
Many countries provide criminal penalties for acts that result in the death of a patient. Thus, in the Russian Constitution, in article 45 of the Fundamentals of Legislation on Health Protection, it is said that medical workers euthanasia at the request of the patient or without it is prohibited. If someone persuades the patient to die faster or assists in this, he bears criminal liability.Even if the assistance was carried out outside the walls of the hospital, the doctor falls under Article 105 of the Criminal Code.
Thus, the conduct of euthanasia by a doctor in any way is equated with premeditated murder. Technically, this is homicide.
The vast majority of such non-legal actions are carried out at the insistence of the patient himself or his relatives ( when he can't say anything at all).
Reviews
These are stupid pictures, but what if I can't see well? I'm talking about "I'm not a robot". Essentially the question. How to call people who are blissful, as long as it does not concern them, until they themselves squeeze something in a vise, the moral torment of believers and everyone who is against it is their personal problem, and a person should have a choice, and here God, why in old age, from humiliation, helplessness, the feeling that you have been chewed for a long time, sucked on and finally spat out and treated accordingly, like spit, should only suffer in Russia? I don’t want to lie smelly, helpless, unwashed with a stroke, look into the eyes of tired and exhausted children and curse myself for vitality, since pensioners are not allowed to live with dignity, why are they denied a decent death, the rotten west, in which everything is wrong,
For more than half a century they have been blowing into their ears, everything is rotting, everything is wrong with them, but how is it treated, so to the west, to die without extreme sports, pissed on the pavement, or in your own bath, so also go far to the rotting,? In what way, but they say, in Russia it is bad to live, it is good to die, they lie. And dying is painful, because from a certain age you are still alive, and for the whole system you have already died, or ... in any case, written off. And I don't want to live to the point of helplessness.
,
P.S. If anyone can tell me what pills to take, so that for sure, I will be grateful. I don't want to create more problems for my children if things go wrong. In any case, I will do it. Today there was a new attack, there were such muscle spasms throughout the body, including the head, that I almost lost consciousness, this was the first time, which means there will be a continuation.
And I think autonasia is simply necessary. Many say that everything that has fallen to a person, he must suffer, supposedly the Lord sends us only what we can. Believe me, this is complete nonsense. I have a rare cervical spinal cord disease. After the operation it was worse than before. For 10 years I have been under house arrest with my own illness. At first I even reconciled, although there were tantrums and constant thoughts of suicide. But at least I could take care of myself and even manage a little around the house. But over time, the condition began to deteriorate. Today I practically cannot serve myself, I am in constant pain. It's not even pain, it's something worse. It feels like something unknown is mocking the home. I can't lie down, I can't sit, I can't walk. When I lie down it becomes stone, crazy convulsions and as if millions of needles dig into me. And every day it gets worse and worse. My face doesn't hurt. I would agree to suffer this for half a year, well, a year, but with my illness they live to old age. Although it is difficult to call it life. I still move with difficulty, but with the speed with which my disease progresses, the bill goes, I think, for two or three months when I just won’t get out of bed. My husband turned away from me, and it’s a pity they haven’t seen children yet, and I can’t allow them such a prospect of caring for me all my life. So I’m slowly collecting pills so that I can carry out autanasia for myself when I completely stop walking. Pills prescribed by a doctor and injections do not help in any way. I am only 42 years old, what do you think, opponents of autanasia, those who say in lofty words that a person must suffer everything, a person can endure wild pain for 10, 20 years. Unfortunately, I don’t have oncology when it hurts, but you know that it will all be over soon. Believe me, I envy cancer patients. Like this. I wish you all good health.
76 years old. Have worked. Didn't save. Pension. Disabled.1 group. There are no prospects. agree to euthanasia.
Andrei, do not fool people with the place where the back ends its noble name!
Where did you see that I wish someone suffering?
You have a perverted understanding of what opposes you.
Can compassion be false? Suffering, whether psychological or physical, is always torment, and sharing it is, well, strange. What is important is not the form, but the content, that is, the sensations of a person as such, and wishing a person to suffer everything to the fullest is somehow inhumane, unless the person himself strives for the crown of a martyr, not to mention the fact that a cancer patient on the last stage happiness does not shine in principle. I would not speak for all religions, not everything is so simple everywhere, because one must die in a clear state of mind, not overshadowed by pain and clouded by agony. Your position is clear, but God forbid your loved ones experience your way of compassion, just as I don’t want you to be the object of this type of compassion.
Andrei, do not confuse self-sacrifice for the sake of saving the highest value - the life of another, with a banal suicide.
You distort concepts and polemize the topic.
Any statement can be turned into nothing by arguing it in this way.
Our values stem from Orthodoxy, where the concept of self-sacrifice for the sake of another or in the name of a higher goal is understood as the victory of the spirit over the body.
A normal person never wants to die and has no such goal. But in any faith there are higher values aimed at understanding the spirit. But not a single faith approves of suicide just like that, because life has become hard. In Orthodoxy, such cowardice is also perceived sharply negatively.
For any believer, regardless of the religion to which he classifies himself, this is clear.
You, apparently, are not a believer and do not strive for spiritual development - therefore, you are guided solely by logic and false compassion.
Compassion should not so much bodily torment as spiritual weakness.
He who has experienced suffering experiences happiness more sharply!
Dear Ruslan, let's say you are right, but according to your logic of things, a person then does not have the right to sacrifice his life at all. He shouldn't go to war because it's pure water suicide, he should not throw himself into an embrasure to save his comrades in battle because this is suicide, he should not throw himself under a car to save a child, etc., that is, a person should not risk his life in any situation, he should calmly contemplate any situation and remember that everything is the will of God and only he can decide who and when will die. If a person has the right to all of the above, then in all other situations his decision regarding his own life is a priority.
No, Andrei, a person does not have such a right.
He received life not of his own free will and it is not for him to decide when and how to end his journey in this world.
I am for euthanasia. If a person has the right to life, then he should also have the right to die! If for some reason life is unbearable for him, he must be given the opportunity to get rid of life. All around hypocrisy! Why can a person die in the interests of the state in a war or harmful production, but is deprived of the right to die of his own free will? Is it because it undermines the power of social shepherds? All nonsense about the will of the Lord is reduced to nothing by one question, but why would a merciful Lord doom a person who lives his first and only life (according to the Abrahamic teachings) to suffering, for what such sins? He didn’t live yet, when did he manage to sin? It’s just that someone really doesn’t like it if the herd starts to solve these issues on their own, through the head of the shepherds. Always and at all times the right to independently decide the issues of life and death distinguished the nobility from the common people, whether it was a duel or a suicide of honor. I think, clearly, people (if they are considered people) should be given the opportunity to kill themselves in a civilized and aesthetic way, if they so wish, and, of course, provide such an opportunity if a person is terminally ill and is experiencing unbearable suffering.
Everything is in the hands of the Lord God, and it is not for us to decide who dies and when. Be healthy!
I'm against!
Firstly, there is an opinion that a person must suffer everything that has fallen to him, since otherwise there is no meaning to his existence. Everything is in the hands of the Lord.
Secondly, I can imagine how many abuses will immediately appear. All objectionable immediately become terminally ill.
Euthanasia must be introduced. I would not want to watch how someone (God forbid!) Of my relatives and friends suffered and suffered, and medicine is powerless! After all, the pain unbearable pain there is simply no strength to worry and doctors do not give positive answers, what to do in this case? After all, the relatives of the suffering person will decide whether to apply euthanasia or not, and I think they will not use it if they know or believe that medicine will help them.
And the fact that people do things with themselves is normal, they fall from a height, they cut themselves and take at least the same suicide bomber, they could not be, we wouldn’t be so stupid that death is my sacred right and it’s up to me to decide what it will be without pain or vice versa, so you left people only a painful death and you call yourself kind good you don't understand that it is the right of everyone and your duty to make it painless!
Introduction
The problem of euthanasia was formulated in ancient times, and even then it caused numerous controversies among physicians, philosophers and lawyers. The attitude to the deliberate acceleration of the onset of death of a terminally ill patient, even with the aim of ending his suffering, has never been unequivocal.
The increased attention to euthanasia is associated not only with the achievements of medicine, but also with changes in the system of moral and spiritual values, understanding of the priority of human rights. The relevance of this topic can hardly be overestimated, firstly, due to the fact that it is connected with the most precious thing that a person has - with his life, and secondly, due to the low level of knowledge of this problem, insufficient coverage of it in the works of scientists -lawyers and the almost complete absence of relevant legal acts in the legislation of the country.
The problem of euthanasia has not only a legal, but also a pronounced moral side. Her resolution is enormous. practical value allowing to ensure the observance of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens.
In Russia, the scientific study of euthanasia was carried out by representatives of many branches of science, in particular S.Yu. Bykova, A.P. Gromov, A.P. Zilber, A.Ya. Ivanyushkin, B.G. Yudin, P.P. Kalinovsky, M.N. Maleika, S.G. Stetsenko and others. The attention to this topic is not accidental. It is obvious that in our country it is determined not only and not so much by purely scientific interest, but by the aggravation of many real problems Russian society. But both legal science and the legislation of more socially prosperous countries today face the need to accept the historical challenge associated with the emergence of the latest discoveries and ideas that can change the way people think, their lives and ideas about their rights and obligations.
The peculiarity of the current legal situation, as well as objective processes in the field of socio-economic development, necessitate a new understanding of the problem of euthanasia.
In real life, the manifestations of euthanasia are very diverse and sometimes do not fit into the existing ideas about it. It is also true that the diversity of opinions about the essence of euthanasia is explained by the multidimensionality of this phenomenon, its insufficient knowledge.
In general, this is what characterizes my choice of topic. But not only for this reason. The relevance of this topic is confirmed by a large number of scientific articles on this topic.
The object of study of this work is such a phenomenon public life like euthanasia.
The subject is euthanasia, as well as the definition of euthanasia.
Purpose of the work: to study the problem of euthanasia.
Achieving the goal involves setting and solving the following range of tasks:
study the general characteristics of euthanasia,
consider the arguments for and against euthanasia,
analyze the problem with various aspects.
see what the practice is in a number of countries around the world.
The work consists of an introduction, seven paragraphs, a conclusion and a list of references.
1. The right to life and the right to die
One of the most important rights and freedoms is the right to life, declared by Art. 20 of the Constitution, but this right cannot be understood in isolation from other constitutional provisions such as human dignity. The mechanism for the implementation of constitutional rights is very complex and not all links of this mechanism have found legislative consolidation - such a link is euthanasia.
The exercise of the human right to death with the participation of physicians is controversial, but it has some meaning and often a legal justification, it has become widespread in different countries about the issue of euthanasia.
TO late XVIII V. recognized the human right to life. But the question of the right to die at that time remained open. Although during this period and subsequently, many philosophers spoke of the need to recognize the human right to death, since the right to voluntary death is as natural as the right to life. Meanwhile, the formulation of the question of the right to death, as noted in the history of philosophical thought, is paradoxical and requires clarification. For example, what kind of death, in fact, are we talking about: natural, unnatural, easy, quick, dignified, heroic on the battlefield, while protecting the legally protected rights and interests of the individual, society, state, forced, voluntary, someone else's, one's own. If one takes the position of a subject who, exercising the right to life, is faced with a situation of choice between life and death, then many of these questions disappear by themselves, and there are no longer any strong arguments against proclaiming that a person has the right to life and death. to death. Both of these rights are so closely related that they are, as it were, sides of the same coin, and at the same time so delicate and fragile that special care is required in handling it. However, much more questions arise with the right to death than with the right to life.
Isn't euthanasia an attempt to justify the indifference, indifference of society to the fate of people with disabilities from childhood, cancer patients, hospital patients in a coma? According to supporters of euthanasia, such individuals are unhappy, doomed to an existence that is worse than death, and therefore an easy and quick death is a true blessing for them. But perhaps it is not they who are unhappy, but those who are forced to be near them? And isn't a person "not like everyone else" the closest "to his natural state" and, thus, less than others "he is removed from happiness"? . The right to die is the right of a person to decide his fate independently and with dignity at the “last moment of real life”. But, like many other somatic rights, this right is a source of controversy, especially when the interests of the individual, society and the state collide.
Thus, the question arises: does the right to death exist and does it follow from the recognition of the right to life? There are several answers to these questions in the history of philosophical thought. One of the approaches - the right to death is the realization of a person's right to life. If we recognize a person's right to life, then we cannot but recognize his right to death (such, in particular, was the position of F. Nietzsche).
The second approach is based on the fact that the right to death follows from the human right to a decent life (such is the position of F. Bacon). It is immoral and inhumane to force a person to live, who, dying in torment, prays for death. The right to die is a guarantee of the dignity of the individual. However, free will also implies responsibility (both moral and legal) of the one who made the decision and who carried out this decision. As J.-P. Sartre: “Man is condemned to be free. Condemned because he did not create himself; and yet free, because, once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does. Using free will, a person makes a choice, and therefore is responsible for what is happening - this is one of the common positions in the history of philosophy, expressed by Aristotle.
At the same time, a person can be morally responsible for a perfect act only if, according to most philosophers, if he had a choice. Does a terminally ill person have a choice - a difficult question, just like other questions are not simple: who should be responsible in the event of euthanasia - a terminally ill person who made the decision to euthanasia, or the one who carried out the euthanasia?
Another aspect of the problem under study was raised in the works of S.L. Frank. In his work Reality and Man, he writes that the state and law are obliged to protect people's lives from the disastrous consequences of their free will, to limit its manifestations. In his opinion, limiting the possibilities of using somatic rights is protecting life from the disastrous consequences of a sinful will, and therefore it is permissible and justified. The constitutional restriction of somatic human rights would be that real external factor, which would contribute to the solution of the problem of the essential overcoming of sin (moral evil) in man.
It should be noted that S.L. Frank did not at all call for an organizational-compulsory restriction of "freedom of the sinful will." The state should not be engaged in the internal re-education of a person, it should only create external conditions that are most favorable for the free internal self-improvement of a person. We can only talk about the fact that law should not only guarantee the observance of the natural rights and freedoms of the individual, but also limit the effect of those of them that contradict the “ideal principle of holiness”. So, the fierce disputes that have been going on around free will since the time of Socrates are caused by the special vital significance of this problem, which was especially evident when comprehending such a phenomenon as euthanasia. The recognition of a person's responsibility for his actions depends on the solution of the problem of free will, including when deciding on own death and, even more so, with consent to the death of another person.
In this regard, two directions clearly emerged in the history of philosophical thought: one proceeding from the recognition of the free will of a person, supported by his right to die, and the other, stating that a person is not free to decide the question of the time of his death, as well as the death of another person. , albeit at his request, but everything is in the hands of God.
In my opinion, there are no arguments against declaring the human right to life and death, because the two rights are closely interrelated. The realization of the right to life is carried out by a person individually and involves the disposal of life at his own discretion, including the voluntary decision to end life. The possibility of independent management of one's life, including the decision to terminate it, is one of the powers of a person's right to life. It is obvious that it is precisely for this reason that the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and other countries does not provide for criminal liability for attempted suicide. No one has the right to prevent a person who has the right to die in the exercise of this right - including the state, which is the guarantor in the implementation of human rights and freedoms. The state, denying a person the right to die, restricts his freedom, turns the right to life into a duty to live.
In my opinion, the ban on euthanasia is unconstitutional. It is contrary to the principles of ensuring freedom and human dignity. In some cases, the behavior of a citizen with a high risk to his own life is not prohibited by the state, which means that the right of citizens to die is indirectly recognized. For example, employees Federal Service execution of punishments of the Russian Federation, in the oath they take, they swear, “without sparing their lives, to protect the established by the Constitution and laws of the Russian Federation legal order».
After analyzing the norms of the Constitution, we can conclude that the legislative consolidation of the possibility of using euthanasia not only does not contradict the provisions of the current Constitution, but also directly follows from its meaning. Worthy life citizen should end with her dignified death.
2. The concept and methods of euthanasia
religious euthanasia society
In our time, when science has reached unshakable heights in various fields and human thought has penetrated into the most remote corners of social consciousness, a question still remains open, which has an extremely importance not only theoretically, but also in practical terms. Euthanasia: what is it? gross violation human rights or their necessary protection? And this question is acute not only for doctors and lawyers, the answer to it is looking for all of humanity.
The term "euthanasia" comes from the Greek words "eu" - good and thanatos - death. Thus, the literal translation of this term is a quick and easy death. In the literature, you can find a different spelling of this term: euthanasia, euthanasia. It is believed that the scientific status of the term was acquired thanks to the English Renaissance philosopher Francis Bacon, who used it in his treatise On the Dignity and Increase of the Sciences, first published in 1605, and meant by it the science of facilitating dying.
In academic publications, you can find various definitions of this term.
Euthanasia is the intentional hastening of the death of an incurable patient in order to end his suffering. (Big medical encyclopedia)
“Euthanasia (euthanasia) - deliberately accelerating the death or killing of an incurable patient in order to end his suffering; considered as a crime under Soviet law.” (Big Encyclopedic Dictionary 1991)
The same definition is repeated word for word in the domestic New Encyclopedic Dictionary, but with the addition of the phrase - "the question of the admissibility of euthanasia remains debatable" (New Encyclopedic Dictionary; 2001)
Euthanasia is the practice of ending a person's life in order to end physical suffering or prolonged coma due to an incurable or degenerative disease" (Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia)
“Euthanasia, also called mercy killing, is an action or practice aimed at obtaining a painless death in persons suffering from pain during incurable diseases or physical disorders" (Encyclopædia Britannica).
The clearest definition of this term is currently put forward by lawyers: “Euthanasia is an “act”, an act of medical personnel, which can be expressed in action (for example, the administration of a lethal dose of a drug by a doctor) or inaction (for example, refusal to carry out resuscitation) . This is a deliberate act, which is based on the intention (goal) of the doctor to hasten the death of the patient for one reason or another (self-interest or mercy). Euthanasia is based on the will of the patient or his relatives. The patient who is euthanized is incurable and the euthanasia is "painless".
Despite some differences in the above definitions, one can single out the common points present everywhere - the death of a person and the desire to make it as painless as possible by any available means.
On the basis of this, it is possible to distinguish the signs characteristic of euthanasia:
The patient must experience incessant, unbearable suffering caused by an incurable (according to medical indicators) disease.
Not any person can interrupt life or hasten death, but only a medical worker.
The patient must persistently and several times express his desire to die, or if he is not able to clearly express his will, then the request should come from his next of kin.
euthanasia like new way medical solution to the problem of death (termination of life) enters into practice modern healthcare influenced by two main factors. Firstly, the progress of medicine, in particular, under the influence of the development of resuscitation, which makes it possible to prevent the death of the patient, i.e. operating in death control mode. Secondly, the change in values and moral priorities in modern civilization at the center of which is the idea of "human rights".
For further consideration of the problem, it is necessary to introduce a number of concepts and try to classify possible options for euthanasia. In the literature, one can often find a division of euthanasia into active and passive, voluntary and involuntary, as well as direct and indirect. Let's look at their main differences.
Passive euthanasia (or, as it is also called, the “delayed syringe method”) is expressed in the fact that the provision aimed at extending life is stopped. medical care which hastens the onset of natural death. In practice, this is quite common in our country.
Active euthanasia (“the method of a filled syringe”) is understood as the introduction to a dying person of any drugs or other means, or other actions that entail a quick and painless onset of death (lethal injection).
Active euthanasia can take the following forms:
) "mercy killing" occurs in those cases when a doctor, seeing the excruciating suffering of a hopelessly ill person and being unable to eliminate them, for example, injects him with an overdose of an anesthetic drug;
) "physician-assisted suicide" occurs when a doctor only helps a terminally ill person to end his life;
) actually active euthanasia can occur without the help of a doctor. The patient himself turns on the appropriate device, as if laying hands on himself.
Thus, the selection criterion in this case is the position occupied by physicians.
The position of the patient acts as a criterion for dividing euthanasia into voluntary and compulsory. Voluntary euthanasia involves the fulfillment of the request of the patient himself. Coercive refers to the absence of an appropriate expression of will. Thus, voluntary euthanasia should be understood as “causing an easy and serene death in a suffering patient at the reasonable request of the patient with the help of various medications and other means.” Compulsory euthanasia is understood as "causing an easy and serene death in a person not at his request, but at the decision of relatives, society and its legislative institutions." Firstly, forced euthanasia takes place in case of influence on the will of the patient by the doctor, relatives of the patient or third parties (for example, by persuasion, threats, blackmail, influence on family feelings, etc.); secondly, we can talk about forced euthanasia in cases where the doctor is guided solely by the request of relatives or trusted persons of the patient (for example, in cases where the patient, due to an extremely serious condition, is unconscious or unable to express his will using known means - verbally, in writing, using signs, etc.) .
Combining these forms of euthanasia, we get four ways (situations) of euthanasia: voluntary and active; voluntary and passive; involuntary and active; involuntary and passive.
Regarding the first situation (voluntary and active euthanasia) and the fourth (involuntary and passive), experts speak both “for” and “against”. Regarding the third situation (involuntary and active euthanasia), opinions, of course, are most often negative. Those who speak in favor of euthanasia, as a rule, have in mind the second situation, when euthanasia is voluntary on the part of the patient and passive on the part of the doctor.
The criterion for dividing euthanasia into direct and indirect is one or another motivation of a medical worker. Direct euthanasia implies the conscious execution of manipulations that should directly, so to speak, in a “one-step” way lead to the death of the patient from life. Indirect or indirect euthanasia means that the actions performed by the physician are only a link in the chain of actions leading to a fatal outcome (“double effect”). Indirect deaths are included in this category when an overdose of drugs is prescribed for the purpose of pain relief.
Thus, it seems possible to draw the following conclusions. There is still no single terminological definition of the concept of euthanasia. The existing classification is not able to provide for all the variety of emerging situations. According to the famous Russian resuscitator A.P. Zilber, the author of the "treatise on Eitanasia", the only thing that unites the above definitions is "the death of a person who has always been, is and will be"
3. "For" and "against". Ethical assessment of euthanasia
The problem of euthanasia present stage has become very important in our society. With the development of society, views on its application are changing. Increasingly, the question arises of replacing such a principle as humanism, with getting rid of human suffering with the help of euthanasia.
The problem of understanding the use of euthanasia has a double meaning: "for" and "against".
Arguments in favor of euthanasia are very diverse, but on closer examination they turn out to be not so numerous. Most likely, each new argument put forward is only a variation on the theme of arguments already in the arsenal of defenders of euthanasia.
Let's try to make arguments in favor of the fact that euthanasia goes beyond unjust murder.
Life is good only when, on the whole, pleasures prevail over pains, positive emotions- over the negative ones. According to this argument, the condition of some people is such that it is better for them to die than to continue to live. A prime example such a situation are those patients who suffer from severe pain or are doomed to a life of humiliating dependence on others for even the most basic needs.
This point of view was best expressed, perhaps, by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche: “At a certain age, it is already indecent to live on. Vegetation in a pitiful dependence on doctors and apparatuses, after the meaning and right to life are lost, should cause contempt in society ... If it is no longer possible to live proudly, I want to die proudly.
Opponents of euthanasia raise two objections. First, it is incorrect to compare the "amounts" of suffering and goodness, because here there is a confrontation between life in the form of suffering and the absence of life in any form. Life remains a blessing even when it becomes predominantly suffering (and many consider every life, even outwardly prosperous life, to be the same way ...). Second. Arguing the admissibility of euthanasia by the fact that such is the will of the patient himself, we thereby recognize that if the patient were able to manage his life, then he himself would stop it, i.e. we actually recognize the right to suicide. However, not everyone who recognizes the right to euthanasia recognizes the moral right to commit suicide.
Supporters of euthanasia postulate that life can be considered a blessing as long as it has a decent form, exists in the field of culture, moral relations. Having degraded to a purely vital, subhuman level, it loses its ethical sanction and can be considered as an object, a thing, and therefore the question of its termination is nothing more than a question of whether to cut down a withered tree.
This argument strikes, first of all, with its emotional emptiness, because in addition to outside human life there is its inner side. And no matter to what zoological, vegetative level it actually degrades, this does not mean at all that a person is ready to treat himself or his relatives in this state in the same way as he treats a dried tree or a thistle. Here it is appropriate to recall the attitude of a person to the dead remains of his fellows: graves are the subject respectful attitude, and this is considered as an indicator of the attitude towards those people of whom they are a reminder. If a moral attitude towards a person extends to his remains, then all the more it should extend to a living body, even if it is mangled by disease.
Helping someone to improve his situation is always morally permissible. If killing will improve someone's situation, and the person himself wants to be deprived of his life, how can such killing be considered causing undeserved harm to this person? How can this act be considered unjust? How could it possibly be wrong? And what, then, is voluntary euthanasia, if not this?
This argument has serious flaws. Is killing "hopeless" patients really the only alternative to doing nothing? And what does it mean to "improve the situation"?
As you know, two types of killing are accepted by even many of the most zealous opponents of euthanasia - self-defense and punishment. None of them are unfair; in fact, none of them is evil. Can voluntary euthanasia be considered as a third type of justified killing?
There is a fourth argument, which, however, does not withstand ethical criticism and is rather mercantile in nature. Maintaining life in the dying stage or in a vegetative state, carried out with the help of advanced technologies, is too expensive. Namely, the funds that are spent on maintaining life in hopeless situations would be enough to treat dozens, hundreds of other people whose diseases can be treated.
The “right to die” can easily turn into a threat to the lives of patients who are not being treated Money. Thus, euthanasia can be considered murder or suicide, depending on the role played by the patient.
The ethical assessment of euthanasia is by no means unambiguous. For every argument "for" there is an argument "against".
Supporters of euthanasia talk about the possibility of choice, that no one has the right to force hopeless patients to experience severe torment, that plant existence and pain deprive a person of dignity, that the patients themselves, seeking to end their suffering, often resort to more horrible methods of suicide than a painless injection.
No less serious are the arguments of those who do not consider euthanasia acceptable. For example, in their opinion, doctors should not be held responsible for killing a person. They pay attention to the fact that medicine is developing very rapidly, and today ways have been found to treat diseases that until recently were considered hopeless; thus, by disconnecting the patient from life support systems, we deprive him of the chance to wait for the appearance of a cure for his ailment.
There is also a high probability of abuse by relatives who pay for the treatment of a hopelessly ill person (or who expect an inheritance, which, of course, will be the smaller, the higher the medical expenses of the owner of the fortune). Greedy relatives can collude with medical personnel and put pressure on the dying person to present his death as voluntary, while in fact consent to euthanasia will be obtained under pressure.
But the main and really unsolvable ethical problem arises in relation to patients who are not able to independently make a decision to stop living: those who are in a coma, mentally handicapped, including those suffering from senile insanity, as well as very young children. For them, if euthanasia is legalized, someone else will decide. Who are doctors, relatives or government officials? And where are the guarantees that their decision will be dictated by considerations of humanism and the interests of the patient? After all, not yet erased from historical memory Fascist programs of “recovery of the nation” through the mass destruction of the feeble-minded, the mentally ill, the disabled, homosexuals, the “racially inferior”…
M.I. Kovalev believes that active euthanasia cannot be legalized, and many factors serve as the basis for this. Among them, the vast majority of erroneous diagnoses, the relativity of the concepts of the terminal and pre-terminal stages, fast development medicine and pharmacology, which makes it possible to cure a disease that could not be cured yesterday.
S. Wolf argues that if we allow euthanasia, then doctors will not need to strive to alleviate painful suffering for sick people, and “the more accessible euthanasia is, the greater the temptation to get rid of the burden of these worries altogether.”
Analyzing the current situation, it should be recognized that those who believe that the current issue is not about whether or not to allow doctors to use euthanasia, but about when and under what conditions to allow it and how to organize control over the legality its implementation.
4. Moral aspects
"Euthanasia" can be defined as "the killing of another person for the supposed benefit of the victim" with his consent ("voluntary euthanasia") or without consent, or even against the will of the person ("involuntary" and "compulsory" euthanasia). By "mortification" I mean an action or the admission of an action chosen for the purpose of depriving a person of life, i.e., regardless of whether the effect is direct or indirect.
According to this definition, physician-assisted suicides are no less than physician-assisted lethal injections examples of euthanasia because they serve the same end, the death of the patient. If similar suicide admittedly, it is difficult to find any moral objection to active voluntary euthanasia. Perhaps there are practical motives for their difference. (For example, assisted suicide may be considered less abusive.)
And here there are two questions about euthanasia - moral (“What can be said about the character of a person who commits such actions?”) And legal (“Should such actions be prohibited by law?”). St. Thomas Aquinas argues that, in general, human law should be based on natural law - forbidding people to do what is not wrong for them - not lawmaking, but tyranny. But, he continues, morality and ideal legality are not identical. Sometimes what is morally bad is not practical to legally prohibit. There is a limit to what the state can ban to unkind people.
At the same time, what morality allows may be prohibited by law, since at times, for the common good, we even have to give up our rights.
Both of these approaches apply when discussing euthanasia. Some argue that while euthanasia is immoral, it should not be banned by law. The two arguments commonly cited as arguments against the application of criminal sanctions are: first, the costs of enforcing these sanctions are too high, and second, the prospect of disobedience is so broad that it already undermines general respect for the law—apparently , are not applicable in this case.
Others argue that while euthanasia is not wrong in all cases, it should not be allowed by law. One variant of this argument argues that euthanasia is morally permissible only in rare cases, but even there it should be banned because the practice is so easily abused that legalizing euthanasia will do more harm than good. Another option is that legalization puts older people in the predicament of either continuing to live or getting out of the way by death—a position in which no one should be put.
J. Rachels believes that if the patient is conscious, understands that his days are numbered, can no longer endure physical suffering and asks the doctor to hasten his death, and the doctor will fulfill his request by simply stopping treatment (passive euthanasia), the patient's suffering can do this time to intensify. In this situation, lethal injection (active euthanasia), according to J. Rachels, is more humane.
Most scientists do not agree with him, and primarily because it is contrary to the principles of humanism and the purpose of medicine. The value of human life encourages us to fight for it even contrary to objective medical laws and in the most hopeless situations (moreover, medical practice is rich in cases of healing the most hopeless patients).
One of the reasons why so many people see the morally important distinction between active and passive euthanasia is that they think it's morally worse to kill someone than to let someone die.
Now it should be noted that, in essence, the cases of euthanasia that are of interest to doctors are not at all similar to those given. They are not motivated by personal gain and do not pursue the goal of destroying normal healthy children. Doctors are only interested in those cases in which life is no longer needed by the patient, or has become or will soon become a terrible burden for him. However, the same point of view remains valid in these cases: the slight difference between killing and not intervening in the process of dying does not imply a moral difference. If a doctor leaves a patient to die on humanitarian grounds, he is in the same moral position when he gives a patient a lethal injection on humane grounds. If the decision made was wrong (for example, when the patient's illness was actually curable), it would be equally regrettable no matter what method was used to carry it out. And if the doctor's decision was correct, the method used in itself is unimportant.
Legal discourse is of interest in terms of the conclusions that the logic of autonomous choice naturally leads to, based on the doctrine of "human rights". Following their individualistic interpretation, accepted in the modern theory of law, most lawyers come to the conclusion that society is obliged to guarantee all types and forms of euthanasia (Yu.A. Dmitriev and I.V. Shleneva, A. Malinovsky, S. Tasakov, etc.). Based on those articles of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which guarantee the right to life, liberty and personal integrity, they justify the right of an individual to freely dispose of his life, including even requiring medical assistance in the implementation of voluntary suicide (Ardasheva N.A., Akopov V.I. ., Borodin S, Glushkov V., Konyushkina Yu.A.). Some lawyers propose to make euthanasia in the category of acts that provide for the mitigation of liability for those who carry it out (Ivchenko O.).
At the same time, it should be noted that within this discourse, a critically negative attitude towards legally justified euthanasia (Kruss V.I.) is also expressed, argued either by its complex legal nature (implying the need to involve several persons for euthanasia, which does not allow attributing her to suicide, which is a purely individual action), or by the fact that the right to life does not at all imply the right to death (Chernega K.A.).
Many scientists fear that the formal permission of euthanasia may become a certain psychological brake on the search for new more effective means diagnostics and treatment of seriously ill patients, as well as promote dishonesty in the provision of medical care to such patients. Resuscitation assistance to them requires not only large material costs, but also a huge strain of physical and mental strength of the attending medical staff. It is the lack of proper treatment and care that can provoke the demands of a seriously ill patient to accelerate the death, which will allow the doctor to completely stop all treatment and care for him. And this is another reason why legal regulation this issue.
A more general view was that euthanasia, from a moral point of view, is permissible only in exceptional cases, but in such cases it should be legalized. Recent legislative initiatives in those countries where it is allowed allow euthanasia only in exceptional cases.
5. Euthanasia and the Church
The church completely condemns euthanasia. Condemnation applies to any encroachment on human life - both in the case of abortion and in the case of euthanasia. However, the church is not so categorical on the issue of refusing artificial life support and proceeds from the following principles.
In the event of the slightest chance of getting out of a coma, it is necessary to use all possible methods to keep the patient alive. This is especially important when the patient is not able to independently express his consent. But if the coma is irreversible, then it is not necessary to use painful and expensive methods, both material and personal. Artificial maintenance of human life in the complete absence of brain activity, reflexes, independent breathing and heartbeat would be an outrage against the dying and serious injury for his relatives.
Christianity is generally opposed to euthanasia. The main arguments are based on the fact that life is given by God, birth and death are in the hands of God. Therefore, human beings have no right to take a person's life, even if he himself wants to die. The process of dying is spiritually important and should not be interrupted. For others, the dying and death of a suffering person is a spiritual feat of love and mercy. Jesus suffered to the end and refused to alleviate the torment at Calvary by drinking a drink that gives forgetfulness
In this regard, the understanding of the theme of suffering by Christian philosophy should also be noted. On the one hand, suffering is the result of human sinfulness, they are sent by God for sins. On the other hand, suffering is a divine test. But in any case, they must be accepted with humility. Hence, euthanasia is a manifestation of the evil will of a person acting contrary to the will of the divine. A person has no right to control his own life. The Christian view of human life rejects the very possibility of its arbitrary termination. And not only because it is a gift sent down by God. Everything that he gives to a person is filled with the highest meaning. Hence, there is no senseless suffering. Suffering, especially near death, purifies the soul of a person from sins, preparing for eternal life. The existence of the pain of human life, like any trial, is "a contribution to salvation," wrote Gregory Palamas.
Thus, God gave life to man, and only he can take it away from man. Behind all the vicissitudes of human destiny, God's plan is visible. “A man left to himself cannot save either his life or his moral dignity. He is unable to save himself from either bodily or spiritual death.
Even if a person showed free will and determined the hour of his death, then he is doomed in the future to posthumous torment.
The Church has a negative attitude towards euthanasia, however, it allows some nuances. So, Pope John Paul II during the audience he gave to the participants International Congress gastroenterologists, emphasizing the absolute inadmissibility of euthanasia, deliberate and active deprivation of the life of a patient, dwelled in more detail on the question of the limits of the powers of physicians in the opposite direction - life extension. “Of course, we should appreciate the huge successes medical science, technology and pharmacology, - said dad. - However, we must not forget that man is mortal. It is necessary to treat the patient with healthy realism, so that the patient does not have the illusion of the omnipotence of doctors.
Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus' touched on the problem of euthanasia in his annual report, noting that “there is nothing worse than suicide, but the number of cases of committing this terrible sin is growing every year. The main reason for this is the lack of purpose in life, disbelief in future life» .
The biblical "thou shalt not kill" is inextricably linked to the negative attitude of Christianity towards suicide. The Church speaks of the doom of suicides to eternal death, denies them burial according to the Christian rite. The rigidity of the Christian attitude towards suicide in general and towards euthanasia in particular is connected with the life-supporting foundations of human social existence. Even such an opponent of Christianity as F. Nietzsche admitted that one of the reasons for the social recognition of Christianity was rooted precisely in its uncompromising struggle with "the irrepressible thirst for suicide, which had become so widespread by the time of its (Christianity - I.S.) appearance" .
In Buddhism, where renunciation of life in itself is considered "exemplary", age and physiological "criteria" for suicide are practically absent. Suicide in Buddhist culture is a kind of religious rite, and this is not surprising, because the highest bliss and the desired goal of life are outside this life - in "non-existence" (nirvana). The types of suicide accepted in Buddhist culture are different. Their choice depends on the specific sect, country, era. This is starvation, and drowning in the waters of "sacred rivers", and ripping open one's stomach with one's own hands.
Judaism categorically rejects active euthanasia, that is, the deliberate creation of a fatal outcome (even if the dying person asks for it), viewing this act as killing a person. In some cases, however, it is permitted to give certain drugs or remedies and prescribe medical procedures if they are necessary to alleviate the pain or suffering of the patient, even if the side effect of them may be the approaching death of the patient.
Islam is against euthanasia. Muslims believe that only Allah decides how long a person lives. “Do not kill a person except by right, because it is forbidden by Allah,” says the Koran (17, 33). According to the Islamic Code of Medical Ethics, “Mercy killing, like suicide, will find support only in an atheistic way of thinking, believing that after our earthly life, emptiness follows. The demand to kill to lessen the suffering is denied." However, the code does not consider it necessary to artificially maintain life in a body with a dead mind.
6. Legalization of euthanasia
Since the second half of the XX century. the discussion around the legalization of euthanasia (euthelium) unfolded in the world
in the context of humanity. However, it cannot be said that global community generally supported this
understanding of humanity in relation to patients. The legislations of many states are in solidarity with the fact that
that euthanasia is unacceptable. And yet there are countries in which she received legal rights.
However, there are states where the issue of euthanasia still finds its positive legal permission. The first attempt was made in Australia, where in 1996 a law was passed legalizing euthanasia. However, this attempt was unsuccessful as the bill was withdrawn after nine months. Today, euthanasia is prohibited in Australia, and for violating this prohibition, the guilty person can be sentenced by the court to life imprisonment.
Holland takes the lead in the legalization of euthanasia. It was there that on April 2, 2002, the Law “On the termination of life at will or assisted suicide” was adopted, which legalized the possibility of assisted suicide and euthanasia. According to this law, everyone who has reached the age of 16 has the right to independently determine the order and method of ending his life. For individuals between the ages of 12 and 16, the consent of parents or other legal representatives is required to carry out this act. The physician performing euthanasia must be sure that the patient's request is independent and well thought out, and that the suffering is prolonged and unbearable. In addition, the doctor is obliged to inform the patient about his condition and the prospects for recovery.
The second country in the world that adopted the idea of legalizing euthanasia was Belgium. On September 23, 2002, the parliament of this state passed a law according to which euthanasia and assisted suicide became legal in accordance with conditions identical to those contained in the legislation of the Netherlands. According to this law, persons who have reached the age of 18 have the right to euthanasia. If the patient cannot express his request, then, at his choice, another person who has reached the age of majority can make a request for euthanasia. Otherwise, the Belgian procedure for euthanasia is almost identical to that provided for by Dutch law.
A peculiar approach to the legalization of euthanasia is fixed in the United States. Thus, in the legislation of almost all states, euthanasia and assisted suicide remain illegal and unacceptable. However, since the American legal system big role play precedents, it should be noted that for the first time passive euthanasia was recognized as permissible in 1976. An exception to the common law was the state of Oregon, which was the first and only legalized assisted suicide by passing the Oregon Death with Dignity Act in 1994 ). This legislative act came into force three years after the decision Supreme Court USA. According to it, an Oregonian who is able to understand and direct his actions, terminally ill and, according to doctors, doomed to die in the next six months, has the right to ask for assisted suicide, provided that he applies twice and states his desire in writing.
There are several other states in the world that do not recognize the nature of the criminal act behind euthanasia. These include, in particular, Switzerland, Germany, Sweden and Finland, where passive euthanasia goes beyond legal prosecution; Colombia, where passive euthanasia is permitted under certain circumstances; Japan, where a special procedure for passive euthanasia has been developed. The French parliamentarians also took the first step towards legalizing passive euthanasia. So, in December 2004, they overwhelmingly approved a bill that proposed to legalize passive euthanasia. A feature of this law is the presence in it of the right of a terminally ill patient to demand to stop treatment, as well as the possibility for doctors to use strong painkillers, even if they hasten the death of the patient.
In other countries of the world, including the CIS, euthanasia is outside the scope of legalization. Ukraine, like Russia, has clearly defined its negative attitude towards the legalization of euthanasia. This position is absolutely justified and European approach. Additional regulation of the ban on euthanasia is provided for in Art. 52 Fundamentals of Ukrainian legislation on healthcare. There, in particular, it is said that medical workers are prohibited from performing euthanasia.
Euthanasia is prohibited in Art. 38 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus “On Health Care”, which states that medical and pharmaceutical workers are prohibited from performing euthanasia, which is defined as the voluntary death of a terminally ill patient agreed with a doctor using special painkillers. A similar rule prohibiting euthanasia is contained in Art. 27 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On the protection of the health of citizens in the Republic of Kazakhstan". The same article says that life-sustaining equipment can only be turned off in the event of death. Legislative constructions similar in their content are placed in the sectoral legislation of other CIS countries.
In 1993, for the first time in our country, the provision on euthanasia received a legislative decision. So, in accordance with Art. 45, 60 of the Fundamentals of the Legislation of the Russian Federation on the protection of the health of citizens, medical personnel are prohibited from performing euthanasia - to satisfy the patient's requests to hasten his death by any actions or means, including the termination of artificial life support measures. And, as some authors rightly emphasize, the same trend is planned to be maintained in the future: a similar rule has been introduced in Art. 145 projects federal law"On health care in the Russian Federation".
At the same time, the so-called passive euthanasia is allowed, in other words, “ voluntary refusal from medical care." The doctor can alleviate the suffering of the patient by injecting him with narcotic drugs that weaken the immune system. As a result, the patient dies from a secondary infection, which his weakened body cannot cope with.
If we conduct a retrospective analysis of this problem, then it should be noted that Russian criminal law knows cases of exemption from liability for
compassionate death.
Due to the lack of legal prerequisites in the domestic legislation that prevent criminal abuses in this area, there is a danger that euthanasia can affect the interests of healthy people, who are quite easy (with the help of medical means and with a bad conscience of people) to turn into hopelessly ill.
In addition, it is necessary to take into account the fact that in medicine there is no concept of an incurable disease. From the point of view of doctors, almost any disease (with the exception of genetic ones) is amenable to medical treatment. Therefore, the concept of "incurability" is rather arbitrary and to a large extent depends on the means and individual opportunities available in this moment at the disposal of the doctor and the patient. In addition, given the non-isolated cases of treatment of seriously ill patients, the result often depends on the individual characteristics of the patient's body and the stage of the disease.
Therefore, further scientific development of issues related to the right to life and the structure of this right, with the moments of the emergence and termination of the right to life is necessary. In addition, any actions related to the violation of a person's right to life are subject to legal liability.
The issue of euthanasia in Russia cannot be considered closed either from the point of view of law, or from an ethical and social point of view. However, despite the severity of the objective circumstances, society, primarily in the face of the scientific, medical and legal communities, must find appropriate forms of practice and convincing arguments that will help to better understand euthanasia in people's minds. And it is necessary to start with the legal clarification of this complex and important problem.
Conclusion
In my work, I tried to consider the problem of euthanasia from various aspects.
In the course of the study, the following results were obtained:
The problem of euthanasia still remains unresolved. Up to today euthanasia is treated differently; public opinion is split into sharply polarized points of view.
liberal stance
From a liberal standpoint, euthanasia is based on a fundamental human law- the right to die if death is the only way out of suffering. The main arguments in favor of recognizing voluntary euthanasia are compassion for others and recognition of the right of a person to determine the time of his own death.
Conservative stance
Using the concepts of "mercy" and "justice" to justify forced euthanasia is a path to possible social chaos. In addition, the use of the concepts of "mercy" and "justice" to justify euthanasia is one of the signs of genuine anti-Christianity as a form of spiritual imposture, when the shrines and values of Christianity appropriate "for themselves such forces in humanity, which in fact and in essence are alien and directly hostile to Christ. and His Spirit."
The conservative position on the issue of euthanasia is simple and unequivocal. "The ethics of Orthodox Christianity reject the possibility of intentionally terminating the life of a dying patient, considering this action as a special case of murder if it was undertaken without the knowledge and consent of the patient, or suicide if it was sanctioned by the patient himself."
Social and legal recognition of euthanasia will not be able to free humanity from disease and suffering. But it can become a powerful and independent reason for the growth of suicides, and not only due to physical suffering.
This once again suggests that euthanasia cannot be judged categorically. Not all situations in life are measured by our theoretical beliefs, and people who have encountered this problem in reality begin to relate to it differently. My own opinion has changed considerably in the course of writing this work.
Nevertheless, despite the complexity of the problem, we must continue to look for a worthy way to solve it, making compromises and avoiding extremes.
List of used literature
1.Kapinus O.S. Euthanasia in the history of law. // Black holes. - 2005. - No. 3. - pp. 456-464
2.Krylova O.S. The right to die. // evolution Russian law: Materials of the 2nd All-Russian Student Scientific and Practical Conference April 22-23, 2004 - Yekaterinburg. - 2004. - S. 213-215
.Bakunin S.N. The right to life and the possibility of using euthanasia (fragments of historical and legal research). // History of state and law. - 2006. - No. 1. - pp. 21-23
.Mishina A.I. Problems of legalization of euthanasia in the Russian Federation. // Politics and law. - 2009. - No. 1. - pp. 107-110
.Jury E.A. Legalization of euthanasia in foreign countries. // Scientific Bulletin of the Omsk Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. - 2009. - No. 4 (35). - pp. 63-65
.Ivchenko I.A. Euthanasia as an Expression of Free Will and the Right to Death (Historical and Philosophical Analysis) // News of the Russian State Pedagogical University them. A.I. Herzen. - 2009. - No. 107. - pp. 95-100
.Zolotareva E.A. Legalization of euthanasia: moral and legal restrictions. // Lawyer - Lawyer. - 2009. - No. 3. - pp. 125-128
.Gulishanova I.A. The concept and types of euthanasia. // Lawyer - Lawyer. - 2009. - No. 6. - pp. 23-27
.Chernysheva Yu.A. The problem of euthanasia from the standpoint of "for" and "against". // Medical law. - 2008. - No. 3.
.Rybin V.A. Philosophical foundations of the problem of euthanasia: a methodological analysis. Abstract of the dissertation for the competition degree Doctor of Philosophy. - Yekaterinburg - 2006.
.J. Rachels. Active and passive euthanasia. ethical thought. Scientific and journalistic readings. - M. - 1990. - S. 205-211
.Philip Foote Euthanasia. // Philosophical sciences. - No. 6. - 1990. - S. 63-80
.Tasakov S. The ban on euthanasia degrades human dignity // Russian Justice. - M.: Yurid. Literature. - 2003. - No. 2. - pp. 40-42
.Munasypova E.F. Euthanasia: violation or protection of human rights?
. // Topical issues of the criminal process of modern Russia: Interuniversity collection of scientific papers. - Ufa: RIO BashGU. - 2003.
."Euthanasia", Kenneth Kemp (St. Thomas University, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA).
.Akopov V.I. Ethical, legal and medical problems of euthanasia // Medical Law and Ethics. - 2000. - No. 1. - pp. 47-55
.Adamenko Artem. Euthanasia - murder or a gesture of mercy? #"justify">. Pavlova Yu.V. Problems of euthanasia in law: [medical ethics]. // Common sense. - 2005. - No. 3. - S. 56-58.
.Vorobyova L.A. ETHICAL PROBLEMS OF EUTHANASIA // COMMON SENSE. - No. 4 (41). - 2006. - S. 38-44
.Tumanov A. Euthanasia - a crime or a blessing? Information and analytical Internet publication Pravda.ru
22.Stefanchuk R.A. Returning to the question of the legalization of euthanasia in the CIS countries: pro et contra // Law and Politics. - M.: Nota Bene, 2005, No. 7. - pp. 95-106
.Siluyanova I.V. Euthanasia - moral, legal and social problems. // Orthodoxy and Modernity. Information and analytical portal of the Saratov diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church (#"justify">24. Kondratiev F.V. Orthodox-ethical aspects of euthanasia. // on Sat. "Orthodoxy and questions of bioethics". - No. 1. - M. - 2001. - S. 31-32.
.Humphrey D. What is auto-euthanasia. // Human. - M. - 1992. - No. 6. - S. 30-40
Tutoring
Need help learning a topic?
Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
- Acne on the face? There is an exit! Pimples on the face of women: what organs are responsible for, and how are the tubercles on the forehead connected with fast food? A lot of acne appeared on the face, what to do
- Effective remedies for fast hair growth: the best recommendations for hair care
- Green tea Benefits of green tea
- Acne on the face? There is an exit! Why acne appears on the human body - what to do if this happens What is the cause of acne