Dilemma: euthanasia or fight for life?
the Question to be or not to be euthanasias (euthanasia - the voluntary death of the seriously ill person) periodically rises before society. In some rich countries with a high standard of living this issue is resolved unambiguously. For example, in Belgium and Holland euthanasia is legalized legislatively for a long time.
And in 2004 - m to year France joined them, having become the third European country which legalized euthanasia. Deputies of National assembly of the country almost unanimously approved the bill legalizing passive euthanasia.
The law adopted by the French parliamentarians, however, does not allow to apply euthanasia per se yet, but allows at the request of seriously ill to stop treating it. The fact that many hopelessly sick French, in - the first, used it pushed to adoption of so unexpected decision of legislators of France, resorting to services of physicians from neighboring countries, and in - the second that some doctors from France practiced euthanasia for a long time, but is not opened. Humanely or not - it is difficult to judge it, but, one is obvious: the patient who has to be in senses has to make such decision.
“ According to provisions of the new law, the patient can make the decision on the treatment termination and in case it is in an unconsciousness, its destiny will be decided by relatives. The termination of the supporting therapy has to be made by the attending physician after receiving the corresponding confirmation of the patient and a consultation “.
The little earlier the bill of euthanasia was approved by legislators of the State of California which became already the second American state where it is officially authorized to carry out euthanasia for incurably sick patients. Before, in 1997 - m to year, according to results of a referendum, the Law “ About death and advantage “ it was accepted by the State of Oregon.
According to this law, to the patient applying for euthanasia there has to remain to live less than half a year. The patient at the same time has to provide at least one written and two oral requirements. In turn, two doctors have to confirm the diagnosis of the patient and to recognize it responsible, intellectually and mentally capable to making decision on death. Only at observance of all these conditions the patient receives a lethal dose of preparations, however he has to accept them independently. The patient has to twice, with an interval in two weeks, orally ask physicians about euthanasia, and then repeat the request in writing.
Unlike progressive part of physicians who consider that such “ ambulance “ hard and hopelessly sick does not contradict modern concepts of ethics as it only stops tortures and sufferings of the patient, their conservative-minded colleagues oppose euthanasia application. They consider that this neglect by one of the most important principles of medicine which existed many millennia and it was put in a Hippocratic Oath as fundamental: “ I will not give anybody deadly means, prosimy at me, and I will not show a way for a similar plan “.
Despite decisions of legislators of some countries, in 2005 - m to year the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) opposed euthanasia legalization. In the adopted resolution of PACE condemns the intended termination of life of incurably sick person on whose that was to desire. The European parliamentarians also expressed concern that euthanasia bypassing an official ban on its application practices in medical institutions of some countries.
The assembly supported broader application of the supporting symptomatic treatment for relief of sufferings of patients, and also suggested to develop techniques and devices on care of incurably sick and to involve specially trained personnel.
As we see, in Europe nevertheless the ambiguous relation to euthanasia, both physicians, and the European parliamentarians. But, nevertheless, similar bills are prepared for consideration by legislators of Israel, Japan and Australia.
Legalization of euthanasia in the former countries of the Soviet Union was repeatedly discussed by physicians, but still further words business did not progress. For example, in Ukraine the decision of physicians was recorded in still not accepted “ Ethical code of the Ukrainian doctor “. So, in article 23 of this code it is told: “... Participation of the health worker in euthanasia is inadmissible “.
The reasons of such decision the most banal, and not only from an ethical and moral aspect, but also for the reason that there are fears of possible abuse of this procedure. For example, under “ voluntary death “ it is possible to write off a high mortality percentage in medical institutions. Besides in such a way it is possible to get rid of objectionable persons that can lead to crime in it already a difficult question.
But there are physicians who are convinced that to allow euthanasia by the seriously ill patient to people it would be humane, and even quote in confirmation from a Hippocratic Oath where it is told: do not do much harm to the patient. On their belief, each person has the right to dispose of the life provided that it is in clear consciousness when makes such decision, and it is recorded by the psychiatrist. Therefore, in their opinion, if hopelessly sick person wishes to die voluntarily to stop the sufferings and sufferings of relatives, then a duty of the doctor - to help such patient.
But as hopelessly sick people cannot dispose of the life yet, and doctors have no legitimate right to stop intolerable sufferings of the patient, often there is only one - senseless fight for life, contrary to desire of the patient … to