Главная 7 Health 7 Euthanasia: yes or no?

Euthanasia: yes or no?

General information

Euthanasia is called the interruption of the life of an incurable patient who is very much suffering from his condition at his request or the wishes of his relatives.
One can speak about euthanasia only in the case when the goal of action is to bring a lethal outcome closer.
In the same case, if doctors prescribe therapy that alleviates the condition of the dying person, but it is fatal, this is not called euthanasia.

Background

If you 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 suffering and suffering.
Three centuries later, the word was given modern meaning, that is, deliverance from the life of a suffering patient from a sense of compassion.
In the thirties in Germany, the Nazis killed hundreds of thousands of people being treated in homes for the insane, calling it “euthanasia.” This was done to “cleanse” the nation of waste. Then for a while the word was forgotten. But since the 70s of the twentieth century, the world has not stopped the debate about whether it is worthwhile to introduce official permission for euthanasia, whether it is humane. If we consider the attitude of the world community to the problem, then it is rather negative.

The temptations of modernity

Medicine today is so developed that doctors are already interfering in the deep processes of the organism. For example, resuscitation can work wonders: prolong the life of an almost deceased organism for a long time. Thus, the very concept of death already loses its meaning. In addition to the previously adopted criteria of death – the cessation of the heart and lungs, another one was added – the death of the brain.

The death of a patient’s brain is determined by a consultation of doctors – a resuscitator and a neuropathologist who has worked in the specialty for at least 5 years. Sometimes other doctors with work experience are included in the consultation. Participation in the consultation of doctors working in the field of transplantation is prohibited.

And if the council was wrong? Or wanted to make a mistake?
In this case, stopping maintenance therapy is tantamount to killing the patient. After all, to make the correct diagnosis is very difficult, and an error is always possible. Bearing in mind people who are in a state of coma, it is absolutely impossible to say anything at all. In such a situation, doctors can prolong a person’s life indefinitely.
But is it 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 the trial.
But in the former USSR, relatives and friends of party officials asked that actually deceased people be “kept alive” in the intensive care unit under the apparatus as long as possible. This allowed access to various benefits – summer houses, special stores.

Where is the edge of reasonable in this matter? In fact, the patient’s body was used and not allowed to die.

How human and humane is this?
Such facts emphasize only one thing – the main goal of the doctor should be at the mercy of the patient.

Difficult problem

From the point of view of philosophy, death is another step towards the comprehension of wisdom. A person dying must realize his role in life and understand: why all this was necessary. Therefore, death cannot be brought artificially. Everyone must go all the way of personal development from the beginning to the end.

According to some philosophies, man represents the eyes of the cosmos; through humans, space 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 more easily die is associated 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 appointment of each doctor is to prolong life, prevent diseases and cure them, alleviate the condition of the patient and help preserve the vital foundations. When performing his duties, the doctor should initially be guided by the interests of the patient. These rules are based on Hippocratic oath, and also on universal ethical norms. The doctor must follow the interests of the person, without dropping his professional dignity.

If we are talking about euthanasia, then the doctor’s actions completely contradict the Hippocratic Oath.

The history of this technique is as ancient as human history. 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 lost the pain and are suffering from it. With the increase in life expectancy, very painful and serious conditions, to which people had never even lived, became massive.

Thanks to the development of medicine today, people reach such a stage, for example, oncological diseases, when torment becomes unbearable. When metastases penetrate into most organs, a person suffers from terrible pain and exhaustion. For such patients, death is almost the only deliverance from anguish.

Although it is horrifying, but many doctors conducting an artificial interruption of life, receive thanks from loved ones who have died. And the most important thing is that many people exhausted by diseases are supporters of this method.

Unfortunately, the material world made even the question of dying a good profitable business. In some countries, for example, you can order the whole procedure with sad music and all the relevant attributes of dying. The client can arrange the process to his liking, which costs a lot of money.

In America, there is a sect, the main theory of whose adherents is – the best that a person can do in his life – is to get maximum pleasure and then commit group suicide.

Arguments for”

one. Some people think that sometimes it is better to die than to expect death and to be a heavy burden for your loved ones.
2 The patient suffers himself and makes his relatives who suffer for his sufferings suffer.
3 Euthanasia is possible only if there is real control, warning of abuse by doctors and relatives.

Arguments against”

one. The idea of ​​artificially interrupting a person’s life completely goes against all religions and moral norms of society.
2 In some states it is not possible today to control the procedure and prevent various abuses.
3 The diagnosis may be erroneous and die a person who can still live long.
four. The patient is sometimes not able to adequately assess the condition and the possibility of treatment.
five. There is a risk that the patient changes his mind in the last minutes and wants to live.
6 The opportunity can take advantage of unscrupulous doctors.

  • Active
  • Passive,

Passive form

Passive euthanasia is the cessation of life-supporting therapy. Sometimes this therapy is not even used.
This practice is quite common among doctors. In terms of morality, the option when treatment does not begin is significantly different from the option when the therapy is interrupted. When the therapy is interrupted, a more serious responsibility lies with the doctor. But if the doctor does not prescribe supportive therapy in fear that it will have to be interrupted, it may be even worse for the patient. Sometimes doctors make mistakes, and supportive therapy bears fruit – a person becomes much better and his life is prolonged.

Active form

Active euthanasia is a special action that entails the death of a patient. Most often it is the introduction of a drug that causes the death of the patient.

In turn, the active form is divided into:

  • Murder of sympathy in a very serious condition of the patient. In this case, the action may be committed by another person without the knowledge and consent of the patient,
  • Voluntary active form
  • Suicide with the help of a doctor.

In the case of voluntary active form and suicide, the main point is the presence of consent or even a request from the patient. In the third case, the doctor supplies the patient with the drug with which he performs the act of suicide.

In which countries is it allowed?

The first country to officially allow active euthanasia, became the Netherlands. In the early 80s of the twentieth century, this procedure was allowed here.

In Belgium, it was resolved in 2002 and over the course of the next year two hundred people took advantage of the law, a year later another three hundred sixty.
According to some information, in this country one can even buy a syringe with a single dose of poison to kill a person. Such a set is sold only to doctors upon presentation of special documents. Not all pharmacies sell kits for killing.

According to the Belgian law, it is possible to “help” people to die from the age of 18, who have incurable illnesses. The physician should receive from the patient several written statements that the patient really wishes to die. About forty percent of the procedures are performed at home in patients.

In Sweden, active euthanasia in the form of suicide is allowed with the help of a doctor.
In the United States of America, permission to speed up the death of seriously ill patients exists in two states of doctors: Washington and Oregon.

In Russia, Poland, many CIS countries, the Czech Republic, Greece, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia and many other countries (not to mention the whole Islamic worlda) the procedure is prohibited and prosecuted. Although, recently there have come news from many European countries about court decisions in favor of the doctors who performed euthanasia.

In many states, passive euthanasia is permitted: in France, Hungary, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Germany, Spain.
There are disputes over this in the UK and Portugal.

Is killing a doctor’s action?
Opponents of euthanasia recall the massacres of people committed by the Nazis in the 30s of the twentieth century, called 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 who are in a vegetative state or incapacitated. The decision of their fate is a very heavy burden.

Social attitude

In medical circles, the attitude towards the problem is heterogeneous. For example, among Uzbek doctors, a survey was conducted on this topic, which showed: 30% are categorically against, 9% believe that sometimes this method can be used, 2.2% think that if the relatives of the patient ask, then this request should be satisfied. At the request of the patient himself, 16.5% would take this step. 38% refused to answer the question at all, claiming that they did not have to deal with such cases.

It was more difficult for female doctors to answer the questions, among those who refused to answer them was two and a half times more than men.
According to surveys conducted among doctors in Australia and the United States of America, about 40% are active supporters of euthanasia, about 60% are against the active form. And 99% of participants for the passive form.

According to the Gallup Institute, two thirds of US residents believe that it is necessary to legalize euthanasia.
For the most part, Russians are quite tolerant of the idea of ​​euthanasia, which cannot be said, for example, of the idea of ​​creating organs for transplantation using genetic engineering.

Holland is one of the few countries where active euthanasia is allowed. This procedure is permitted only to specially licensed clinics. In such clinics introduced a new service: killing at home. For this purpose, special brigades are created that, when on call and for specific reasons, will help the death patients to terminally ill.

Not all doctors in the country are ready to provide this service to their patients. For such patients, and created a mobile team. Not all doctors like this innovation has caused delight. Opponents believe that only the attending doctor can really determine: whether it is still possible to help the patient or already nothing will work except a lethal injection.

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 have been stationary for many years.

Church attitude

Christianity as a whole does not support the idea of ​​euthanasia, because according to this religion, human life is a creation of the Lord. In this connection, the people themselves can not manage life even with a very big desire. From the point of view of the church, it is the very death of a person – a stage for the formation of his soul. Therefore, it is impossible to intervene in the process. Those close to you should take torment and death as a feat for the sake of good and future generations, just as Jesus Christ suffered for people.

The Catholic Church also negatively relates to euthanasia, calling it a violation of God’s law. Despite the adoption of a resolution condemning euthanasia, some Catholic and Christian priests raise the question of the possibility of the realization of the right to death if a person is incurably 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 calmly relate to not supporting human life by artificial methods.

Adherents of Buddhism cannot develop a more or less general point of view on this problem. Because if a person wants to die prematurely, this indicates the predominance of the body over the spirit.

Criminal liability

In many countries, criminal penalties are imposed for actions that result in the death of a patient. Thus, in the Russian Constitution, Article 45 of the Fundamentals of the Legislation on Health Protection states that medical workers are prohibited from conducting euthanasia at the request of the patient or without it. If someone persuades the patient to quickly die, or assists in this, he is criminally liable.

Even if assistance was provided outside the hospital, the doctor falls under Article 105 of the Criminal Code.
Thus, a doctor conducting euthanasia in any way equates to murder. Technically, this is murder.

The overwhelming majority of such non-legal actions are carried out at the insistence of the patient or his relatives (in the case when he cannot say anything at all).

О admin

x

Check Also

Thirty-third week of pregnancy

From the twelfth week of gestation, the period is considered solely obstetric weeks, since all ...

Thirty-seventh week of pregnancy

The body weight of the fetus at the 37th week of pregnancy is 2,771 plus ...