Search for:

Posted on March 18th, 2013, by

the biggest danger of euthanasia lies in the fact, that it encroaches on the idea of the sanctity of human life, crosses the border, marked the ancient law of Do not kill. As a fact, Do not kill is the normative expression of the essence of humanistic morality. It is not logical to claim the moral sanction to the actions that are directed against the fundamental principle of morality itself. Euthanasia can not be considered legitimate, since in this case a person moves the boundaries of their competence. There are two things that are fundamentally related to human, but occur without his consent. This is his birth and his death. Nobody asked a man if he wants to come into this world. As well, no one asks him whether he wished to withdraw from it. He was asked only that he wants to happen to him in short, someone bestowed a moment of life. Supporters of euthanasia sometimes say that it is not a choice of life or death, but between different ways of dying and if a person gets help when he is born, then why should he be deprived of help when he is dying. It can be said that attitude toward death, the behavior in the process of dying is an important part of human life; it certainly remains within the morally responsible choice. However, in order to choose death and conduct with dignity in the face of death, are not the same things. Likewise, it is two different things – to ease the process of dying person, just as facilitated by the birth process, or to kill him, according to Death with Dignity: The Case for Legalizing Physician-Assisted Dying and Euthanasia.
Moreover, ethical sanction of euthanasia increases the risk of abuse by doctors and relatives. Danger of abuse that exists in general, increases in relation to the situation with hopeless disease. As a rule, doctors value the professional reputation and do not like to have too many dying patients. Relatives may wish to the patient’s death due to inheritance and other considerations. It is essential to note that morality is one of the last barriers to the encroachment of human life. If our society recognizes the euthanasia, then that barrier will be removed. Without any doubts, society in which breached in the unconditional prohibition of murder, will be a completely different society. It should also be noted that, although euthanasia each time is considered as an exceptional case and a decision is taken not by one person and after various methods of treatment were tried, however the possibility of errors is not excluded.
Thus, it can be said that there is no compelling moral arguments to justify euthanasia. Indirect confirmation that the decision about euthanasia can not be considered morally irreproachable act, can be found in the way of its adoption. In the real experience of modern medicine in countries, where the practice of euthanasia is legally ordered form, the relevant decisions are made by special ethical committees. As a rule, they include physician, representatives of the medical staff and hospital administration, the priests, the philosopher of ethics, lawyers, social service insurance, etc. it should be mentioned that this is a collective body, which adequately represents the interests of society and the patient. Moreover, the way of the decision making process says about its emergency. It is emergency in at least two respects: to adequately meaningful, it is the responsibility of an unbearable weight, and consequently, it needs collective distribution of gravity as the release of ethically acceptable limits, it is fraught with many types of abuse here – a comprehensive representation is more reliably block for the possible abuse of power, according to Nicholas Beale (2008).
To sum it up I would like to say that the word euthanasia literally means: a great (easy, pleasant) death. With the discussion of the euthanasia problem, bioethics takes into account differences in methods of treatment, patient types and situations, focusing on the maximum specific analysis, it goes even further – requires consideration of every possible case of euthanasia in its singularity. As a matter of fact, personally I am against euthanasia allowance.
Active euthanasia in any country has not received the legal sanction. Voluntary euthanasia is carried out with the prior consent of the patient (in advance and in legal form to express the will of the case falls under the definition of euthanasia, has become a widespread practice in some European countries). Moreover, there is following ethical dilemma: whether to grant the patient to the nature and technique, dooming him to a heavy, long and painful death or by act or omission of some action to help him die.
Analysis of the ethical arguments for and against euthanasia shows that in this case we are talking about an issue that apparently is not solved within the framework of logically rigorous and empirically accurate judgments. It is, ultimately, a matter of choice, which, while appealing to rational arguments, seeks to clarify its reasons, nevertheless precedes them. Euthanasia only secondarily is a matter of strict scientific knowledge. First and foremost it is a matter of choice, which determines the direction of human action.

Posted in Term paper writing | Tagged | Leave a comment

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *





0 Comments