For And Against Euthanasia
The theme of euthanasia can not leave anyone indifferent. This is one of the most painful, urgent and widely discussed topics
The term euthanasia comes from two Greek roots — “eu” (good) and “thanatos” (death).
Thus, euthanasia is a “good death”. In some countries the very formulation of questions about legally legalized assistance to a person in retirement seems blasphemous, in others, it has long been a legal practice.
The problem of euthanasia is at the intersection of a huge complex of disciplines — medicine, jurisprudence, religion, philosophy, and for its full discussion, it is necessary to involve specialists from all these areas.
Arguments for euthanasia:
Everyone has the right to decide for himself whether to continue torturing him or to end them. Everyone has the right to die and the state can’t interrupt a person’s right to die.
A person releases not only himself from torment, but also his loved ones from a heavy moral and physical load.
Euthanasia is under strict control, not allowing machinations of doctors and relatives.
If a person has the right to dispose of his life, then give him the ability to dispose of it until the very end.
He does not have to act against his principles. 50% of doctors experience discomfort when they have to resort to “good death”.
People say: “You, the doctors, have created a problem, that you have to solve. You have made that people now live longer and everyone lives to such illnesses that they did not know before. And you must help them.”
In Holland, where the “good death” has been practiced for 10 years, they are very convincing in favor of it. But people in Holland are very lonely. Older people there live away from their children and grandchildren. But there is some feeling that this is all absolutely wrong.
Arguments against euthanasia:
Social and ethical damage to culture. Everyone, even the ardent supporters of this new decision, always has some kind of brake, a feeling that this is not good from the vision of culture. A lot of people say that euthanasia should be limited.
And it is contrary to religious beliefs and moral principles of society.
From a religious idea, suicide is a sin.
The value of human life is an important argument against it. How can one person take life from another?
A doctor may make a mistake in the diagnosis, and a person may have a chance of recovery.
A person who suffers from severe pain cannot always correctly assess his condition and prospects for treatment.
In a number of countries, there is no way to strictly control the procedure and avoid abuse.
Euthanasia can be used for profit.
The inclined plane is a fear for misuse of euthanasia. Today, an elderly person can ask for it, and tomorrow his relatives will ask for it, who want to get an inheritance sooner.
The best alternatives are a very weighty argument, e.g., in the UK. Doctors use the palliative care there. Palliative care is helping people with incurable diseases, that they will suffer less and live as best they can until they die in their natural way.
Legislative resolution of euthanasia will not lead to an increase in the number of abuses. The modern legal position engenders the concealment of the true intent of the cessation of life. In the presence of well-developed by doctors and lawyers provisions that take into account numerous factors, eliminating contradictions in the law and bringing legislation into line with human rights, such offenses will become less.
All these arguments are good, but they need some kind of confirmation. You can not just say: “This is an inclined plane.” We need to study this issue, reinforce with real practice. That they are not just our reasoning.