Euthanasia is good or bad. Is euthanasia allowed in Russia or not? Attitudes towards euthanasia in different countries of the world
PLAN:
1. Introduction: Euthanasia – pros and cons…………………………………2
2. Active and passive euthanasia………………………………………………………..6
3. Moral aspects……………………………………………………………...7
4. Conclusion…………………………………………………………….18
5. List of sources used……………………………..19
For some, death is a punishment,
For others it is a gift
For many it is a blessing.
Seneca
Euthanasia - pros and cons
"Euthanasia is any action aimed at putting an end to the life of a person, going towards his at will, and performed by a disinterested person" (Dutch law definition).
The problem of euthanasia did not arise today, or suddenly. It begins its chronology in ancient times. And even then it caused numerous disputes among doctors, lawyers, sociologists, psychologists and so on. The attitude towards deliberately accelerating the death of a terminally ill person, even with the aim of ending his suffering, has never been unambiguous. The English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626) coined the term “euthanasia” (from the Greek euthanasia, eu - good, thanatos - death) to denote an easy, painless death, that is, good, calm and easy death, without torment and suffering. In modern publications in Russian, two terms are used: “euthanasia” and “euthanasia”.
Although the idea of euthanasia itself originated a long time ago. But from the time of Hippocrates to the present day, traditional medical ethics includes a prohibition: “I will not give a medicine that causes death to anyone, even if he asks for it, and I will not recommend it either.” But recently, doctors are increasingly willing to resort to this practice, according to at least, when the patient himself asks for death. How should we approach this trend? How to liberation from outdated prohibitions or as a kind of permissiveness that is both morally wrong and dangerous in practice?
At the beginning of this century, lawyer Binding and psychiatrist Gohe proposed calling the destruction of so-called “inferior” lives euthanasia. This monstrous interpretation of the concept of “euthanasia” later became widespread in Nazi Germany and in the countries it captured. They killed newborns with “abnormal development”, mentally ill people, patients with tuberculosis or malignant neoplasms, disabled people, old people, etc. A special killing industry was created in the form of gas chambers, gas chambers, crematoria, etc. The International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg qualified these actions as crimes against humanity.
People who recognize euthanasia as a human right most often pay attention to the following:
Every person has the right to choose: “that is why a person and a rational being can decide for himself whether to live longer or die, freeing himself from painful pain, and his loved ones from caring for him”; “dooming oneself to torment is cruelty, there must be a right to choose”; “if a person in a clear mind decides to die, then this is his right”; “It’s time to respect human rights in Russia, and the right to die is also a right”;
It is better to accept death in the event of an incurable disease than to suffer and be a burden to the family: “this is better than lying chained to a bed for years, enduring pain and torturing relatives”; “I myself would not want to lead the life of a plant and cause difficulties for my loved ones”; “the anticipation of death is much worse than death itself”; “It’s hard to watch when the most close person. It is difficult for those who have not encountered this problem to understand”;
This is acceptable only if there is strict control over the implementation of this procedure: “this needs to be legally formalized so that euthanasia does not become legalized murder”; “euthanasia can be recognized as a human right, but there is a danger of abuse and sabotage, in particular on the part of medical personnel: fraud and illegal actions of doctors, death ordered by third parties, etc.”; “yes, although there are concerns that there may be abuse”; “What matters here is who, under what circumstances and in what way will do this; it is necessary to clearly think through the mechanism for protecting a person from possible criminal attacks on his life under the pretext of a “worthy death.”
Those who oppose the legalization of euthanasia in Russia cite the following arguments:
This is contrary to religious and ethical standards: “no one is free to take a person’s life; if euthanasia is allowed, then we will cease to be human”; “life is given by God, and only God has the right to take a person’s life”; “I am a believer and I believe that a person has no right to interfere”; “euthanasia is not recognized by any religion, and due to the fact that spirituality is being revived in Russia, it is premature to raise the question of euthanasia”; “a person has no such right”; “The life of every person is priceless!”;
Our country is not ready for this step, since abuses are likely to follow: “this decision will lead to irreversible consequences, actions against human life”; “in our country, euthanasia can easily be turned into deliberate murder for personal gain, without the consent of the person himself”; “medical businessmen will take advantage of the right to kill lonely and defenseless people”;
A patient, due to his state of health, may make the wrong choice: “a sick person who decides to subject himself to euthanasia cannot always adequately assess the situation”; “A sick person is not an exponent of free will; he can ask for easier care on the spur of the moment. What if the diagnosis is a medical error? Relatives can take advantage of this by expressing their opinion, and not the desire of the patient”; "every person up to last minute wants to live"; "many people who signed consent to this procedure, at the last moment they changed their minds.”
The Church completely condemns euthanasia. Condemnation applies to any attack on human life- both abortion and euthanasia. In the Christian tradition, death is accepted as the separation of soul and body and as a revelation spiritual world. Christianity cultivates an attitude towards death not as the final stage of existence, but as a transition to a higher meaning, union with God. Christian bioethics rejects active euthanasia as a deliberate interruption of life, and regards voluntary euthanasia as suicide. But there are situations when a doctor’s actions run counter to the oath he took. We are talking about euthanasia.
Active and passive euthanasia
With passive euthanasia, the provision of medical care, life-sustaining treatment, which accelerates the onset of natural death - this practice is widespread in our country. But most often, when they talk about euthanasia, they mean active euthanasia, which is understood as the administration of some kind of substance to the dying person. medicinal substances, entailing a quick and painless onset of death.
In active euthanasia, the following forms are distinguished:
1. “Mercy killing” occurs in cases where relatives or the doctor himself, seeing the painful suffering of a hopelessly ill person and being unable to eliminate them, inject or inject him with an overdose of an anesthetic drug, resulting in a quick and painless death. The issue of patient consent in this case is not posed at all, since he is unable to express his will.
2. The second form of active euthanasia is physician-assisted suicide, which occurs with the consent of the patient, the doctor only helps him end his life.
3. The third form - actual active euthanasia - occurs without the help of a doctor. The patient himself turns on the device, which leads him to a quick and painless death, as if he were committing suicide.
Thus, the essence of the problem of euthanasia is the deliberate infliction of death by a doctor on a patient out of compassion or at the request of the dying person or his relatives.
Moral aspects
When talking about euthanasia, two questions arise: moral (“What can be said about the character of a person who commits such actions?”) and legal (“Should such actions be prohibited by law?”).
Some argue that although euthanasia is immoral, it should not be prohibited by law. Two reasons that are usually given as arguments against the use of criminal sanctions are: firstly, the costs of implementing these sanctions are too high, and secondly, the prospect of disobedience is so wide that it already undermines general respect for the law - it seems , are not applicable in this case.
Others argue that while euthanasia is not wrong in all cases, it should not be legal. One version of this argument argues that euthanasia is morally permissible only in in rare cases, but even there it should be banned, since the practice is so easily abused that legalizing euthanasia would do more harm than good. Another option is that legalization puts older people in the difficult position of choosing between either continuing to live or getting out of the way by death - a situation in which no one should be put.
IN foreign literature There are many options for the moral assessment of euthanasia. Most authors support passive euthanasia methods and reject any possibility of using active euthanasia. However, there are also directly opposite opinions. For example, its most famous exponent is the prominent American philosopher J. Reigels, who sharply criticized the Resolution of the American Medical Association of December 4, 1973, which says: “... the intentional termination of the life of one human being by another - merciful murder - contradicts the very purpose medical profession and the policies of the American Medical Association."
The topic of euthanasia definitely cannot leave anyone indifferent. Perhaps today this is one of the most painful, pressing and widely discussed topics. In medicine, euthanasia is the possibility of a person suffering fatal disease, make an independent choice between the time allotted to him and premature death. Or, if he cannot make such a decision due to his physical condition, the choice can be made by relatives. To allow or prohibit euthanasia – there is constant, never-ending debate on this issue. Despite the fact that it is allowed in some countries, there is still no consensus on this issue in the world. Unfortunately, even considering high level medicine and its achievements under the influence of scientific and technological progress, it cannot save humanity from death and physical suffering.
The history of the origin of the term “euthanasia”.
Translated from Greek, the word “euthanasia” includes two words “good” and “death”. This is where we get the literal translation of “good death.” This term was first used in the 16th century by Francis Bacon, who even then defined the main signs of euthanasia: an easy and painless death and the firm conviction that dying is a greater blessing than experiencing pain and suffering during life.
Almost three hundred years later, another, more modern meaning term - to help a person experiencing unbearable suffering die from life, that is, to show compassion for him. Before the Great Patriotic War German Nazis, hiding behind euthanasia, exterminated hundreds of thousands of people who were kept in psychiatric hospitals. In fact, they were simply cleaning up the nation.
Then for some time no one remembered this term, but at the end of the twentieth century, issues of euthanasia again began to concern humanity. There are endless debates about whether euthanasia should be officially allowed, and how humane it would be. It is worth noting that the world's attitude towards this is to a greater extent negative.
Moral aspects of euthanasia.
If we consider physical side death, then this is nothing more than the cessation of the vital activity of a living organism. No matter how life turns out, no matter what environment you are in a man is born, the only thing that is certain is that he will die someday. But no one can know when this will happen. Even those who attempt suicide cannot be completely sure that the outcome will be fatal. For here everything is decided by His Majesty chance, sometimes happy, but more often, not. No one can guarantee that a suicide attempt will not result in severe disability if for some reason the intentions were not carried through to completion. You can find many cases and historical facts when a person remained alive even after taking a large dose of a potent poison. Maybe this happens because everyone has their own deadline?
Let's remember the Hippocratic oath that every student takes medical institute, and, according to which, the doctor must, first of all, take into account the interests of the person, without losing his professional dignity. His calling, as medical ethics says, is to treat diseases or prevent them, and also to do everything to prolong the patient’s life. What happens? By committing euthanasia, the doctor violates the Hippocratic oath.
However, present time dictates its own rules. Human life expectancy is increasing, and along with it, the number of people experiencing severe and painful conditions that their ancestors simply did not live to see is increasing. Take, for example, a disease such as oncology. Nowadays, thanks to treatment, people live to such a stage of the disease when the pain becomes unbearable. For them, death is indeed for the good, as a release from torment.
Points for and against.
For euthanasia:
Against euthanasia:
Types of euthanasia.
In addition to the well-known classification into passive and active, euthanasia is divided into voluntary and involuntary.
Passive euthanasia is the cessation of therapy that was keeping the patient alive. In some cases, such therapy does not even begin. From the point of view of doctors, the second option is less responsible morally and professionally. However, if the doctor is confident that therapy will have to be interrupted and for this reason does not prescribe it, he may be harming the patient, since it is possible that the patient will feel better as a result of treatment.
Active euthanasia is an action aimed at ending the life of a patient by administering a certain drug. Active form There are also several types:
- 1. Compassionate euthanasia when the patient's condition is extremely grave. It can be performed without the request or consent of the patient.
- 2. Voluntary euthanasia. Here, not only the patient’s consent is required, but also his request for relief from suffering.
- 3. Physician-assisted suicide. The doctor gives the patient necessary drug, which he accepts independently.
In which countries is euthanasia allowed?
In Holland, active euthanasia was officially allowed at the end of the twentieth century. Moreover, it is allowed to carry out the procedure at home. For this purpose, in clinics licensed for this type of activity, teams are created that will help patients suffering from fatal diseases, die at home, surrounded by family.
Belgium came to euthanasia later - in 2002, and according to statistics, within a year two hundred people chose this method of dying. In the country, a doctor can be sold a syringe with a dose of a drug for euthanasia, however, with special documents and, of course, not in every pharmacy. Euthanasia cannot be used on persons under 18 years of age. Just under half of all procedures in Belgium are also carried out at home.
In Sweden, a type of active euthanasia is allowed, such as doctor-assisted suicide.
France, Germany, Austria, Norway, Hungary, Spain and Denmark allow passive euthanasia.
The UK and Portugal have not yet reached a final decision.
In Russia, the CIS countries, Serbia, Bosnia, Poland, many other countries and throughout the Islamic world, euthanasia is not only prohibited, but also criminally punishable.
How does euthanasia happen?
If we're talking about about physician-assisted suicide, medications are used that should be taken orally. As a rule, the volume of these toxic substances is large and the taste is unpleasant. Therefore, if euthanasia is performed by a doctor, the drug is administered as an injection. This speeds up the process, does not cause vomiting and, so to speak, is easier to tolerate. Substances used in euthanasia are constantly being improved. They must meet the following requirements: speed, painlessness and reliable results.
All drugs are made on the basis of barbiturate. IN large doses this substance causes paralysis respiratory system, to whom and death. Earlier drugs acted within a few hours, so it was impossible to talk about an easy death.
Current drugs contain other substances in addition to barbiturate, and barbiturate itself is used as an anesthesia. After this, another injection is given, which relaxes the muscles. The impulses coming from the brain to the muscles of the diaphragm slow down, and breathing stops. There is an opinion that such euthanasia is not entirely painless; in addition, the patient feels an acute lack of air. But no one knows what he really feels, since he is unconscious.
Another option is an injection that stops the functioning of the myocardium to a patient under deep anesthesia. But this method does not provide easy care, since the patient often experiences convulsions.
There have been attempts to use drugs based on opium, but the problem is that many patients are already addicted to the drug, which is used for pain relief. Therefore, even an increased dosage does not cause death.
Also in some cases it was used increased dose insulin, which can put a person into a coma. But this drug also caused convulsions, and death could come only after a few days or not come at all. That is, the main goal of euthanasia - painless and easy escape from suffering - is also not achieved.
Criminal liability for euthanasia.
Criminal penalties for actions aimed at ending the life of a patient exist in many countries. In the Russian Constitution, in the section on health care, it is written that medical workers are prohibited from performing euthanasia, either at the request of the patient or without it. In addition, persuading a patient to end his life as soon as possible is also criminally punishable, regardless of where this all happens: within the walls of the hospital or outside it. Euthanasia in Russia is equated to premeditated murder, despite the fact that these two crimes have significant differences:
In addition, euthanasia in most cases occurs at the urgent request of the patient or his relatives, if he is in a state where he cannot say anything. Therefore, it cannot be put on a par with other crimes. Probably, euthanasia should be carried out under a different article.
It is very difficult to come to a common opinion regarding euthanasia, because it involves the most important values of humanity: life, faith, compassion and mutual assistance.
Also, read on the website:
NLP
Good afternoon! I would like to ask you for advice. The fact is that for some time I met with an NLP / pickup trainer. At that time I didn’t know what this meant for me. When we broke up, I didn’t understand for a long time, but...
From the very beginning of civilization, people have been subject to serious illnesses, leaving no place in a person’s life for anything other than suffering. Such troubles are constantly accompanied by the problem of euthanasia: not everyone has an immutable will to live, so for seriously ill people, only one thing often remains important: how to get rid of suffering. Euthanasia, with all its contradictions, for many is the most logical or even the only way to end the torment that the disease brings. Attitudes towards euthanasia are ambiguous almost all over the world, except, perhaps, in the poorest countries. In any society there will be opponents and supporters of this operation, and everyone will present quite logical arguments for or against. In the Russian Federation, even voluntary euthanasia is strictly prohibited and is punishable by the Criminal Code, not to mention procedures carried out without the patient’s consent.
Easy death
The very concept of “euthanasia” implies a kind of easy, painless death. This is evident from the etymology of the term - from Greek “euthanasia” is literally translated as “good death”. However, in addition to voluntary death with the help of a doctor, this concept includes the termination of the life of a patient who is not able to decide for himself, for example, pediatric euthanasia. In history one can find many examples where children with abnormal development, incapacitated old people, the disabled, and the mentally retarded were killed. This approach has been widely used in ancient Sparta or Nazi Germany: it was believed that an incapacitated old man or mentally retarded child- only unnecessary expenses for the state and a burden to relatives. In Nazi Germany, these principles were also considered to contribute to maintaining the purity of the “Aryan race”, emanating from the fascist policy of the state (during the Nuremberg trials, such actions were called crimes against humanity).
Since the middle of the last century the theme easy death became more popular than ever, and voluntary euthanasia remained the only possible option - in modern world It is unacceptable to treat sick and disabled people as “superfluous” or “undesirable.” The problem of euthanasia now implies the taking of life only at the will of the patient himself or his immediate family. In total, euthanasia is classified into two categories: passive, which implies the cessation of life-sustaining therapy, and active, which involves the introduction of a lethal injection into the patient’s body. Sometimes terms such as “delayed syringe method” and “filled syringe method” are used, meaning passive and active euthanasia, respectively. The active method of the procedure is conventionally divided into several subtypes:
- euthanasia performed by a doctor is a case when medical staff provides an act of mercy to the patient by giving a lethal injection or killing in another way;
- assisted by a doctor - the doctor provides the patient with all possible assistance in this delicate matter: supplies medications, gives detailed instructions, dispels doubts and fears;
- without the help of a doctor - a kind of suicide (medicine overdose, unauthorized shutdown of life-sustaining equipment), home euthanasia is often carried out without the participation of medical personnel.
Prohibitions and moral aspects
The legal aspects of euthanasia in some countries are quite lenient; for example, in the Netherlands both active and passive forms are allowed. In some parts of the world, euthanasia is either not regulated at all or simply not monitored - this includes many countries in Africa or Asia, where the standard of living is so low that neither the state nor his relatives can support a disabled person. In Muslim countries, in many European countries, in particular the Russian Federation, any manifestations of euthanasia are strictly prohibited.
Countries where euthanasia is allowed:
- USA - doctors in the states of Texas, Washington and Oregon can perform both types of euthanasia. More than 20 states allow termination of therapy with the consent of relatives on their territory; in two states, child euthanasia is allowed;
- in Belgium and Sweden seriously ill patients over 18 years of age can die by expressing their written consent;
- Denmark, Austria, Norway, Germany, France, Spain - provide passive types euthanasia;
In most other countries, with a few exceptions, legal norms do not imply assistance in parting with life in any form, and are almost always prosecuted by law. This principle applies in the Russian Federation, the CIS countries and all Muslim countries.
Voluntary death is an issue that is perceived extremely acutely by many people, for example, followers of one religion or another. It is important to be tactful and delicate here!
Regardless of whether the country allows the use of lethal injections or withdrawal from life support systems, disputes about the correctness of this decision in any state arise on an ongoing basis. What are the opponents or supporters of such a delicate approach motivated by? Here are popular arguments that can be heard in such disputes.
- the possibility of getting rid of pain and suffering, if this is not possible in any other way - running forms cancer, tuberculosis and others. In the absence of prospects and hope of getting rid of the disease, many consider it fair to have the right to euthanasia of a patient experiencing severe pain;
- costs of maintaining hopelessly ill patients - often people spend many years in hospitals or in the care of relatives, no longer able to return to normal life. People who are seriously ill or completely vegetative state, who are already brain dead, require constant care or expensive medications. Maintaining the lives of hopelessly bedridden patients in some countries costs up to 34 thousand dollars a year;
- for the most neglected cases, voluntary euthanasia is a humane alternative to suicide, no matter how unpleasant it may sound. In conditions low level of the Russian Federation, terminally ill patients account for up to 32% of all suicides;
- Malicious intent or self-interest - cases cannot be ruled out when medical personnel or the patient’s relatives have more than just altruistic motives. The most common example is the desire to receive the inheritance of a seriously ill relative;
- probability medical error- arguments often used in disputes, but very unlikely from a statistical point of view. Implicit here are the possibilities of misdiagnosis or improper treatment, which contributes to additional suffering or deprives patients of the prospect of healing. All this can force a person or his loved ones to make the wrong decision about killing;
- religious motives - the vast majority of world religions consider such operations absolutely unacceptable. The problem of euthanasia, from the point of view of Orthodoxy or Islam, is the most common murder, even if the patient asks for it himself, experiencing incredible torment;
- Child euthanasia is unfair from a moral point of view, because you can never predict with absolute accuracy how the development of a child will proceed, whether it will be possible to provide him with the necessary complex medical events and how strong his desire for life will subsequently manifest itself, despite illness or disability.
Euthanasia in Russia
In Russia, euthanasia is strictly prohibited in any of its manifestations. The implementation of such procedures, assistance in them, inducement to suicide and even consultation on such issues of seriously ill patients can be prosecuted by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. This rule is regulated by Article 45 of the Fundamentals of Legislation of the Russian Federation, which is called “On the Prohibition of Euthanasia.” It prohibits both active assistance in dying and the cessation of supportive therapy for the patient and failure to provide assistance. In addition, the Criminal Code provides for punishment for inducing a person to voluntarily die; the term “incitement to suicide” is in no way mitigated by the fact that the person is experiencing suffering or pain and has no chance of recovery.
Remember that even abstract discussions about such complex things as euthanasia can be regarded by someone as an attempt to induce it. For example, internal affairs bodies.
Despite such a strict policy, in some cases there is the possibility of using passive euthanasia, and more specifically, the termination of artificial life support. For example, a competent person over 18 years of age can refuse any medical care, including even life-sustaining therapy. For this purpose in medical institution a specially provided form is filled out, which must be evidenced by at least one stranger. This rule applies even when the patient’s continued existence is impossible without medical care, which means that doctors are obliged to stop artificially supporting life and “discharge” a terminally ill patient.
A person’s life is in his own hands, and this often costs a lot. Therefore, any person should think very seriously about the need for such radical measures like euthanasia. The arguments for and against this approach may look as convincing as you like, but the right to choose should always remain with the patient and be based only on his own interests. Just as there are no incurable diseases, there is no reason to give up even for the seemingly most hopeless patients. Value your life and that of your loved ones.
Driven horses are shot - for humane reasons, terminally ill dogs, cats are euthanized - for humane reasons, and a person can endure - nothing, let him suffer to his heart's content. Relatives observe the patient’s suffering, listen to his groans, screams and grinding of teeth, and cry from powerlessness. The priests rejoice - here you have love and mercy, everything as the great Jesus Christ bequeathed. Doctors either send an incurable patient out of sight, or with all their fervor prolong the agony - they took an oath to help people. Funny? Disgusting. This is not humanism, but hidden sadism and indifference. But everything is simple. The will of the patient, two doctors who document incurable disease, administration representative settlement, law enforcement representative and notary. A document is drawn up, the patient finishes his business, says goodbye to his family and friends, he is given an injection, he falls asleep and passes away with dignity. Why turn into a creature half-mad from wild pain, torment your loved ones, burn with shame that your children are forced to wash you like a baby, or lie like a vegetable and blow bubbles? Those who like it are welcome, but a person must decide his own destiny.
I have made two attempts at suicide - from a hopeless life and stupid loneliness - no one needs me and in the end, everyone who is not too lazy and even too lazy wipes their feet on me, plus they force me to live, claiming that I am a genius - I don’t want to live in this world , but this is forbidden, it is forbidden not to want to live - a ban on euthanasia: this is feudal law and fascism. And they tell us that it is democracy. (At this time I’m taking a break from my last suicide attempt and I think that the third one will succeed - I have experience)
Definitely for it. Not everyone likes this life, and is it possible to force someone to live? Why should he/she cut his/her veins, swallow pills and suffer? Let go of those to whom life is alien.
I have cancer with bone metastases. I have already completed 30 courses of chemotherapy in 2.5 years since the start of treatment. I got a lot of pain due to chemotherapy, but I can’t even describe the pain I’m experiencing. I ask you to allow euthanasia, I beg you to allow it, because this is not life constantly on injections so that the pain will go away at least a little, the injections are no longer alive and they have to be done every 3 hours. This is not life, this is hellish torment when you don’t really want to live because of the pain and you only think when this torment will end.
Every day everything more people are thinking about euthanasia, but their opinions fundamentally contradict each other. Some consider this a good deed, while others consider it murder, which should be categorically prohibited. IN Lately several European countries, such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, have officially decided that euthanasia, for and against which people speak out, whose opinions society listens to, is acceptable. The same applies to the American states of Oregon and Washington. But almost all other countries of the world and US states oppose it, considering it a criminal offense. Euthanasia in Russia is also prohibited and punishable by law.
In order to understand the pros and cons of which people so often speak out, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with some fundamental provisions. There are two types of euthanasia - active and passive. The passive form includes refusing therapy that supports the patient, and the active form includes administering any medications or taking actions that shorten the patient’s life. In addition, it is necessary to distinguish between involuntary and voluntary euthanasia. If the patient is conscious, then he has the right to decide for himself whether to continue to live or not. If not, then this decision is usually made for him by his relatives.
Two sides of the coin
One of the most controversial issues modern medicine is euthanasia, the reasons for and against the use of which are not so easy to find. On the one hand, medical progress makes it possible to successfully resuscitate a patient and maintain his life with the help of special devices and drugs, but few people think about why a person needs such a life if he has no hope of recovery. In addition, theoretically, every person has the right to manage their life as they wish. But in reality, it turns out that people, when they become weak, cannot do anything else and are at the mercy of their relatives, without the right to end their own lives.
The main problem with euthanasia is its moral side. Opponents of this procedure believe that, in essence, euthanasia is an ordinary murder, which means that a certain group of people gets the right to decide whether a person should live or not, and to act in accordance with their decision. Supporters of euthanasia, on the contrary, believe that this will allow a person to control his destiny until the last moment, to which he has every right.
Practice shows that a fairly small percentage of people under 40 think about their death and about such a problem as euthanasia, for and against which there are many arguments. But before making a decision, you need to weigh everything carefully. People of pre-retirement and retirement age also rarely think about how they will spend their last days what is the mentality expressed in Russian citizens who believe that such thoughts can “cause trouble.” This same phenomenon is also associated with the record low number of wills drawn up in Russia, since people are of little interest in what will happen after their death.
Life should bring joy, and a meaningless existence dependent on life support machines will not bring happiness to anyone. In many countries around the world, relatives are simply forced to disconnect patients from the devices, since they do not have huge money for their content. In this case, an excellent solution would be for the patient to voluntarily decide in advance that he agrees to such a procedure and sign papers on passive euthanasia. Each person will have their own reasons for and against it. In most countries, this concept is inextricably linked with organ donation: in states Western Europe, which our politicians and officials love to look up to, it is believed that every person who has not formalized a refusal during his lifetime can become a donor.
St. Petersburg Pediatric Medical University
Department of Humanities
Abstract on the topic:
"Legal Problems of Abortion"
Prepared by a third year student:
Lubnin Nikita
Faculty: Dentistry
Group: 361
Euthanasia
Mortification or the practice of ending the life of a person suffering from an incurable disease and experiencing unbearable suffering.
There are:
passive
active euthanasia
Passive euthanasia - is the refusal of life-sustaining treatment when it either stops or does not begin at all. Passive euthanasia (discharge from hospital of a hopelessly ill patient) is often encountered in medical practice.
From a moral point of view, there is an important difference between the situation in which a decision is made not to begin treatment and the situation in which treatment that has already begun is stopped.
The moral burden falling on the doctor will be more severe in the second case. However, if the doctor is afraid to begin life-sustaining treatment in order not to end up in a situation where it has to be stopped, then this may be an even greater harm to the patient who could have been saved by such treatment.
Active euthanasia is a deliberate act to end the life of a patient, for example by injecting a lethal agent. There are such forms of active euthanasia as 1) killing (killing) out of compassion (when life, which is torture for the patient, is interrupted by another person, for example a doctor, even without the patient’s consent),
voluntary active euthanasia
physician-assisted suicide
In the second and third cases, the consent (or even the demand) of the patient himself is decisive. In the second case, the doctor himself, at the request of the patient, gives him a lethal injection; in the third, the doctor hands over to the patient a means that allows the latter to commit suicide.
The main argument of supporters of active euthanasia is the human right to self-determination. Every person has the right to life from the moment of his birth, which means he also has the right to die.
No one has the right to force hopeless patients to experience cruel torment, that vegetable existence and pain deprive a person of dignity, that patients themselves, trying to put an end to their suffering, often resort to much more terrible methods of suicide than a painless injection. Hanging with a sheet, gnawed veins, jumping from windows and leaving suicide notes, which can be traced by paying attention to hospices.
Medical activity is inherently the most humane type of activity. But sometimes, for the benefit of the patient, it is first necessary to inflict pain on him (under medical control) in order to subsequently relieve him of the torment.
However, when the disease overcomes the body, and the doctor is powerless, and no one is able to save a human life, he very often gets up The question is: why subject the body to torment every hour if the outcome is already a foregone conclusion?
However, an objection immediately arises - is a “medical” error possible, how accurate is the prognosis of the disease, maybe somewhere in the world there are new approaches and methods of treatment? It is quite difficult to give a definite answer to this, but it is possible.
That is why a full conclusion with a number of specialists is necessary, but ask if a person has cancer terminal stage, due to which he experiences terrible pain, and painkillers no longer work, then by stretching out the time, we are only bringing closer the appearance of a lifeless body in our ward, which will hang with its legs with its head bowed, without touching the floor.
Life is sacred and inviolable, some scientists say. Life should not turn into a painful and meaningless existence, others argue. There is still no consensus on the issue of euthanasia both in our country and throughout the world.
All countries in the world can be conditionally divided into two groups: those that do not exclude the possibility of using euthanasia, and those that categorically do not accept this option for resolving the issue of ending the patient’s life.
The Russian Federation belongs to the second group, and has legislated a ban on euthanasia. The Netherlands came forward with legislative permission for euthanasia, adopting in April 2002 a national law stipulating the procedure itself and issues of “legal safety of physicians.” In fact, open euthanasia has been practiced in this country since 1997. There is a legal ban in the UK, Spain, Russia, Germany, etc.
Still, Germany allows its own “passive” form of euthanasia. At the request of a hopelessly ill person, doctors can stop using medications to prolong his life. “Passive” euthanasia has been practiced for quite some time in Switzerland.
In England, on the contrary, after long discussions, a law was passed unconditionally prohibiting any euthanasia in medical practice. In accordance with the laws of the state of Indiana (USA), there is a so-called living will, in which the patient officially confirms his will to ensure that his life is not artificially prolonged under certain circumstances.
In 1977, in the state of California (USA), after many years of discussions in referendums, the world's first law was adopted "On the human right to die", according to which terminally ill people can draw up a document expressing their desire to turn off the resuscitation equipment. Although so far this law “does not work” due to the refusal of medical personnel to carry out euthanasia. It should be noted that in all of the above examples we are talking only about passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is punishable by law in all countries.
Opponents of the legalization of euthanasia cite the following arguments:
- the possibility of an erroneous diagnosis when a initially incurable disease turns out to be subsequently treated;
- the humanity of the medical profession, obliging the latter to prolong life, and not hasten the arrival of death;
- allowing euthanasia can lead to abuse by medical workers;
- the human right to euthanasia, based on the definition, should include the obligation of the physician to help hasten death
At the same time, the arguments of supporters of the legalization of euthanasia boil down to the following:
- this is a manifestation of the realization of the human right to life;
- legislation allows the patient to refuse treatment;
- a calm, dignified death is better than severe, humiliating suffering caused by unbearable pain;
- restriction of the rights of terminally ill people in comparison with other people, since the latter can commit suicide in order to “take their own lives”, while terminally ill people are often deprived of this opportunity for health reasons.
Considering the potential possibility of legalization, its supporters propose the following conditions for euthanasia:
It is impossible to cure a patient and alleviate his suffering with the methods and techniques of medicine that exist today
Conscious, persistent, repeated request by the patient for euthanasia
Full informing of such a patient by the attending physician about the state of health and the consequences of euthanasia
Conducting a consultation of medical specialists, subject to unanimous confirmation of the idea that it is impossible to save or alleviate the suffering of the patient
Informing the patient's relatives
Informing authorities
Court decisions on the possibility of using euthanasia
Legal norms on euthanasia in Russian legislation
Regulatory legal acts containing rules on euthanasia, first of all, should include international regulatory legal acts, since generally accepted principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation according to paragraph 4 of Art. 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation are integral part legal system of Russia.
Russian legislation establishes a direct ban on euthanasia - Art. 45 Fundamentals of the legislation of the Russian Federation on the protection of the health of citizens dated July 22, 1993. , which stipulates that “medical personnel are prohibited from carrying out euthanasia - satisfying the patient’s request to hasten his death by any actions or means, including the cessation of artificial measures to support life”
Obliging the doctor to go to the end in the fight against the patient’s illness, the law at the same time granted the patient the right to refuse medical care at his own discretion. Thus, the Fundamentals of the legislation of the Russian Federation on Protection of Citizens' Health in 1993 contains article 33 "Refusal of medical intervention", which states: "a citizen or his legal representative has the right to refuse medical intervention or demand its termination, even if it has been started, at any stage of implementation"
So there are no legal grounds oblige a person suffering from a serious, life-threatening illness, such as cancer, to undergo treatment. However, in Russian Federation euthanasia, in whatever form it may be carried out, is prohibited.
So, in Art. 45 of the Fundamentals states that medical personnel are prohibited from performing euthanasia. According to this article, a person who deliberately induces a patient to euthanasia and (or) carries out euthanasia bears criminal liability in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation. This conclusion also contradicts the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which contains the elements of murder - intentionally causing the death of another person (Art. 105).
A similar prohibition is contained in the text of the doctor’s oath, approved by the Federal Law of December 20, 1999 "On amendments to Article 60 of the Fundamentals of the Legislation of the Russian Federation on the protection of the health of citizens" , which contains the following provision: “Receiving the high title of doctor, and starting my professional activities, I solemnly swear... never to resort to euthanasia!”
Persons who have graduated from higher medical educational institutions of the Russian Federation, when receiving a medical diploma, take an oath, the text of which is established Art. 60 Basics Future doctors solemnly swear to show respect for human life and never resort to euthanasia. The fact that the doctor has taken the oath is certified by his personal signature under the corresponding mark in the diploma indicating the date. The same article of the Fundamentals talks about the responsibility of doctors for violating their oath. Since the patient's consent to harm does not eliminate social of a dangerous nature Passive euthanasia and assessment as murder, the responsibility of a medical professional should occur on a general basis.
Some experts in the field of criminal law believe that the deliberate inaction of a doctor, expressed in the failure to carry out resuscitation, which he should and could have performed, in the absence of signs of biological death, forms the so-called inaction-non-intervention, entailing criminal liability for failure to provide assistance to the patient (Article 124 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation ), but not murder (Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
In the science of criminal law, both in Russia and foreign countries, the problem of euthanasia is often considered from the perspective of a broader concept - the consent of the victim to cause harm. Russian criminal law proceeds from the fact that such consent should not be considered as a circumstance excluding the criminality of an act.
Therefore, the position of the current criminal legislation of Russia regarding euthanasia is clear: it is murder, i.e. the intentional, wrongful taking of another person's life.
The motive of compassion, specified in the list of mitigating circumstances provided for in Art. 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation , can be taken into account only when assigning punishment to the guilty person, but not when qualifying the act. Killing motivated by compassion is classified as Part 1 Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation like murder.
From the point of view of the theory of Russian criminal law, euthanasia - (active or passive) - does not exist due to the fact that there is no fundamental difference between murder committed by means and murder committed by inaction.
An interesting fact is that inducing a patient to euthanasia, which is discussed in Art. 45 Basics , liability for such actions is not provided for in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. According to Russian criminal law, inducement to suicide does not constitute a criminal act.
Thus, both a deliberate act and a deliberate inaction aimed at causing the death of another person have an equal degree of social danger if they achieve their result, since euthanasia actions are aimed specifically at causing an easy death, therefore the main goal of this act is to cause death .
Motive and purpose are mandatory signs of the subjective side of murder at the request of the victim and, accordingly, have a decisive impact on the qualification of the crime.
Conclusion
Firstly: by legalizing euthanasia, people have an extra way to deprive an unwanted person of life.
Secondly: taking a person’s life, even by his own will, is a very heavy burden that not many doctors will be able to shoulder.
Such a burden can easily affect the doctor’s psyche. Also, in any other case, euthanasia is the killing of one person by another, and allowing this leads to rather sad consequences. Also, we should not exclude cases when a person can be cured of a disease, or a cure for this disease can be invented, then the relatives who signed the euthanasia permit will kill the person just like that.
In general, the same the death penalty, but not for those who have broken the law, but for those who are now no longer able to lead a normal life.
The decision must be made by the patient himself; only he can decide whether to die or not.