Olga Sigismundovna Popova lectures. Olga Popova: “I emigrated from Ancient Rus' to Byzantium

From the very beginning of civilization, people have been susceptible to serious illnesses that leave no room for anything other than suffering in a person’s life. 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, for all its contradictions, for many is the most logical or even the only way stop the suffering 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 was widely used in ancient Sparta or Nazi Germany: it was believed that an incapacitated old man or a mentally retarded child was only an extra expense for the state and a burden to relatives. In Nazi Germany, these principles were also considered to promote cleanliness." 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 topic of an easy death has become more popular than ever, and voluntary euthanasia has 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 carried out by a doctor - a case when medical personnel provide 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 on their territory with the consent of relatives; 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 for passive types of euthanasia;

In most other countries, with 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 impossible in any other way - advanced forms of 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 even in a 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 advanced 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 inappropriate treatment, which contributes to additional suffering or robs 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 a child’s development will proceed, whether it will be possible to provide him with the necessary set of medical measures 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 witnessed by at least one outsider. 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 as 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 proceed only from his/her 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 am taking a break from last try suicide 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.

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 ability of a person suffering from a terminal illness to make an independent choice between the time allotted to him or his premature death. Or, if he cannot make such a decision due to his physical condition, his relatives can make the choice. 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 influenced 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 language the word “euthanasia” includes two words “good” and “death”. This is where we get literal translation"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 The German Nazis, under the guise of 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 the physical side of 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, which every medical student takes, and according to which, a doctor must, first of all, take into account the interests of a 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, the current 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 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. The active form also comes in 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 the necessary medication, which he takes on his own.

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, clinics licensed for this type of activity create teams that will help patients suffering from fatal diseases pass away at home, surrounded by their relatives.

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 of the respiratory system, coma 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, an increased dose of insulin was used, which could 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 in relation to euthanasia, because it involves the most important values 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...

In ancient Greek society, euthanasia was understood as a dignified death, acceptance of death among loved ones or on the battlefield. Later, this was the name for a quick, painless death, as well as the deliberate termination of the life of a person suffering from torment.

Today, euthanasia is viewed as a rather narrow concept, the root of which lies in the conduct of a specific medical procedure. More specifically, the essence of the event lies in taking the life of a terminally ill person at his personal request or the decision of loved ones by introducing appropriate drugs into the body.

In the case of unauthorized use of lethal drugs provided by a doctor, directly by a person who wants to end his life, the procedure is deprived of the definition - euthanasia. Attitudes towards euthanasia in in this case discussed in modern understanding as "assisted suicide". The taking of a patient’s life by an arbitrary decision of a doctor without the patient’s consent cannot be called euthanasia. Such actions are regarded exclusively as intentional murder.

"Doctor Death"

There are many medical specialists who are close to such a painful topic as euthanasia. Arguments for and against the procedure have been repeatedly expressed by eminent doctors around the world. By the way, the most famous supporter of euthanasia, who actively defends his position and puts his own views into practice, is the American doctor Jack Kevorkian, better known as “Doctor Death.” Over the course of his career, the American specialist managed to send more than a hundred seriously ill patients to the next world. It is noteworthy that Kevorkian’s patients administered the deadly drug themselves, using a homemade device developed by the doctor.

Repeated attempts to bring Kevorkian to justice each time ended in acquittals, and in the meantime, the problem of euthanasia was gaining more and more resonance in society. As a result, “Doctor Death” ended up behind bars only after the death of a patient who was unable to “reach the button” to administer a fatal dose of the drug. A video recording of the procedure, during which Kevorkian himself administered the lethal injection, was soon used by the prosecution as the main evidence of the defendant’s guilt.

Once under oath, the doctor tried to consider the positive aspects of euthanasia, convincing those present only of fulfilling his professional duty. As a result, the prosecution managed to prove the specialist’s guilt in premeditated murder.

After being imprisoned for 8 long years, Jack Kevorkian received the right to early release on the condition that euthanasia would never affect his practice again. Moreover, the doctor was prohibited from caring for the elderly, the seriously ill and those with serious physical disabilities.

During all this time, no unambiguous attitude towards the concept of euthanasia has been formed. Arguments for and against also did not affect dramatic change views on the problem from an odious specialist.

As soon as he was free, the specialist organized an open speech in front of an audience of five thousand at one of the universities in Florida. During his address to the public, “Doctor Death” tried to prove the need to grant the procedure the status of an accessible medical service.

Euthanasia: resonance

The world community was forced to return to resolving the problem of euthanasia by the case that affected the French woman Chantal Chebier, when in March 2008 the woman became the center of attention of the world's largest media.

For seven long years, Chantal endured unbearable agony as a result of developing a severe, incurable form of nasal cancer. By this time, the consequences of the disease had led to terrible transformations of facial tissues, which, in addition to unbearable pain, deprived the woman of her sense of taste and led to complete loss of vision.

Shebir has repeatedly considered the possibility of getting rid of suffering as euthanasia. The public also spoke out for and against the introduction of lethal injection, and a petition regarding the possibility of carrying out the procedure reached the President of France himself. However, wherever the woman turned, she had to endure refusals.

Apogee tragic story became March 20, 2008, when Shebir was found dead in own home. The results of the autopsy of the woman’s body showed that the intake of substances containing barbiturates led to her premature death.

Soon the event caused an unprecedented resonance throughout the country and far beyond its borders. Numerous public and political organizations have expressed their own views on the issue of euthanasia. High-ranking government officials spoke for and against the procedure, promising to evaluate the incident.

The right to choose

Supporters of the procedure in countries where euthanasia is legal are actively opposed by numerous opponents from the Catholic Church. Even a slight softening of attitudes towards euthanasia did not change the position of Vatican representatives, who still consider this option as suicide on a par with such phenomena as genocide, suicide and abortion.

Other religious denominations generally share the above position. After all, according to believers, human life belongs to the Almighty, and this only means that a person cannot decide whether euthanasia should be carried out. A whole mass of people speak out for and against in Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, other countries of the post-Soviet space, as well as in numerous European countries. The only paradox in this case lies in the rather liberal attitude of the church towards the death penalty.

Ethical side of the issue

As for the ethical, non-religious assessment of euthanasia, everything is not so simple here either. For every argument from supporters of the procedure, there is always a counter-argument from people with the opposite point of view.

Proponents of the procedure argue that hopelessly ill patients must decide for themselves how long the senseless torment will continue. At the same time, the desire to avoid suffering by patients often leads only to suicide using more horrific methods compared to a fatal injection.

If we talk about people in whose understanding euthanasia is not acceptable, then their views look quite weighty. For example, according to the latter, doctors should not burden themselves with deliberately taking the life of a patient, which contradicts the main professional oath. In addition, from year to year, more and more revolutionary ways of getting rid of serious diseases, which were previously considered incurable, are emerging.

Euthanasia: common for

As the main argument for carrying out euthanasia, supporters of the legalization of the procedure most often put forward the right to the “autonomy” of the incurable patient’s decision to continue or terminate his own existence and the responsibility that follows this decision.

The recognition of such a right is facilitated by the arguments of authoritative medical specialists. Thanks to scientific progress In the field of medicine, human life has become noticeably longer. The right to long-term existence is given to seriously ill people who, under the same circumstances, a century ago would not have been able to live even a week.

However, only in exceptional cases does the use of progressive solutions bring satisfaction to incurable patients. If a person has the right to live as long as possible, then a solution such as euthanasia has the right to exist. In Ukraine, many authoritative experts speak out for and against, as well as in Russia, France, Germany and other civilized countries.

The above perfectly reflects the concept of mercy, the main position of which is deliverance from pain, suffering and senseless torment. However, the described arguments are often disputed by eminent authors of scientific materials.

Taking a less common view among pro-euthanasia advocates, it is better to control own destiny rather than needlessly delay the inevitable.

As a result, since the issue of euthanasia causes such resonant discussions, it means that there is a certain need for the procedure. Thus, a study conducted by Dutch scientists in the late 90s of the last century only confirmed the opinion of how important the procedure is in modern society. A table with the opinions of respondents showed that 60% of incurable patients and their loved ones are in favor of legalizing the procedure. In reality, only a small proportion of respondents wished to decide on such an outcome.

Since that time, the problem of euthanasia has remained insoluble. But society’s position towards euthanasia has also become more liberal. Thus, according to the Gallup Research Center, only three Americans out of ten respondents do not recognize euthanasia. Countries of the post-Soviet space and numerous European states, according to the results of research in Lately are also inclined to a similar opinion.

Euthanasia: against

Opponents of the legalization of the euthanasia procedure have always put forward the weight of human life. And if murder is the ultimate evil, then no one should take on such a heavy burden, regardless of the circumstances.

Another rather impressive argument in favor of opponents of euthanasia is the violation of the “Do no harm” rule, which doctors must unquestioningly follow. Adhering to this point of view, only every third medical specialist advocates recognition of the procedure. However, a positive attitude towards the phenomenon continues to be observed in countries that have already legalized euthanasia.

Among opponents of euthanasia, there is an opinion that ending life in this way is the beginning of a rather slippery slope, at the end of which there is complete displacement human values. It is difficult to say how realistic this development of events is, because not much time has passed since the legalization of the procedure in some countries.

On the one hand, one cannot help but note the increase in the number of people wishing to exercise the right to euthanasia. On the other hand, those sentenced to life imprisonment, as well as minors, have already received the right to carry out the procedure, which caused mixed reaction public.

Among the many philosophical, extremely negative views on the legalization of euthanasia, it is worth highlighting several practical arguments against the procedure. It's primarily an imperfection. legal framework, lack of unanimous public position and the development of corruption. The problem remains relevant also because of the availability of an alternative option regarding the possibility of careful care for an incurable patient and alleviation of suffering with the help of modern medications.

Euthanasia: pros and cons - table

Euthanasia of animals: is it worth euthanizing a hopelessly ill pet?

A separate topic is the euthanasia of animals, as well as the public’s attitude towards the problem. Today, animal euthanasia is allowed in almost all countries. In fact, this event represents a rather sad decision. However, sooner or later almost every pet lover finds himself confronted with it.

Sometimes four-legged pets get sick regardless of careful care and availability of all necessary vaccinations. Well, if you face the truth, for most owners, expensive treatment for a pet is simply an unbearable burden.

Key points when carrying out euthanasia of animals

If euthanasia of animals is inevitable, and the veterinarian pronounces the frightening verdict “put to sleep,” then the following points must be taken care of:

1. Check and double-check the diagnosis by contacting individual specialists. Only objective results of the most accurate research can create a clear picture of the situation in which the sick animal finds itself, and allow the owner to understand that there is no other way out.
2. To form an idea of ​​how overwhelming it can be to treat an animal if euthanasia is refused. Showing love and care for your pet is a noble initiative. However, emptying the family budget for the sake of expensive chemotherapy or other procedures is at least unreasonable.
3. If the pet owner is an ardent opponent of euthanasia, then you need to think about the differences in the thinking of an animal and a person. Based on the evidence of zoologists, pets have only certain emotions, feelings and the rudiments of consciousness, characteristic of man. But to identify the consciousness of a four-legged friend with your own, expressing wishful thinking, is somewhat wrong.

Why is animal euthanasia so important? The pros and cons of this decision still have a right to exist, despite its relative humanity. Of course, animals experience overwhelming fear and suffering during medical procedures. At the same time, pets do not have a concept of the future, which assumes the possible disappearance of pain with successful completion of a course of therapy. The pain, discomfort and horror that the pet is experiencing at the moment are perceived by him as eternal. Therefore, this is often the only possible act of showing mercy from the owner to the pet.

Eventually

Should euthanasia be legalized? Pros and cons, photos, videos, as well as numerous scientific and printed materials demonstrate different attitude to the problem in countries that already practice such a procedure.

For example, euthanasia in countries that have decided to legalize the procedure is allowed only if the following steps are met:

• the patient’s awareness of the decision and the conscientiousness of future procedures have been proven;
• the unbearable existence of the patient and his unbearable suffering, in which no improvement in his condition is predicted, has been confirmed;
• the patient is of sound consciousness and fully aware of his situation, has complete information about possible treatment options and familiarize yourself with doctors’ prognoses;
• none alternative solutions to reduce or stop the patient's suffering;
• the diagnosis and prognosis of the course of the disease were confirmed by another authoritative specialist, whose identity is not known to the patient;
• a plan for the procedure has been developed, the doses of fatal substances and their nature of impact on the patient are known.

Currently, the overwhelming majority of the world community is not ready to accept the legalization of euthanasia. The main reason This is due to the lack of perfect mechanisms for caring for terminally ill patients, which could provide for all possible ways to alleviate suffering. As a result, considering euthanasia as the only possible solution given the shortcomings of alternative options is simply wrong.

Legalization of the procedure in most countries remains impossible due to the imperfection of the legislative framework. For example, in domestic realities, patients have the right to refuse medical care. However, according to professional standards, medical professionals are obliged to provide assistance when there is a threat to human existence. In other words, current regulations both prohibit and permit the removal of a patient from artificial life support systems. Legalizing the euthanasia procedure could make the situation even more confusing.

Phenomenon

The meaning of the word “euthanasia” has changed greatly over time. And now few people understand what it really is. IN Ancient Greece euthanasia was a “dignified end to life,” a “good death” (on the battlefield or surrounded by close relatives). Then they began to call it “easy death,” that is, death without suffering, and then “the necessary cessation of life to avoid pain and suffering.” Now “euthanasia” is a rather narrow term that describes a specific medical procedure. Namely, the active murder of a terminally ill person, carried out at his request by administering medications by a doctor. If the drugs provided by the doctor are administered by the person who wants to die, this is not euthanasia. According to modern ideas, such an action should be called “assisted suicide.” It will not be euthanasia if a doctor kills a patient if the patient has no desire to die. It's just murder. Refusal of additional treatment for a patient who is obviously dying is also not euthanasia.

Let us now try to briefly summarize the arguments and counterarguments of both supporters and opponents of euthanasia. Those who advocate euthanasia usually justify their position with the following arguments:

1. The person must be provided right of self-determination, to the point that he himself can choose whether to continue his life or end it. The weakness of this argument is that the implementation of euthanasia one way or another presupposes the participation of a doctor - and he also has the right to choose and, moreover, refuse “participation in euthanasia, which will be a huge burden for him in both the moral and psychological sense.

2. A person must be protected from cruel and inhumane treatment,

Indeed, if a patient has to endure severe and incessant pain, a feeling of compassion may suggest such a solution as euthanasia. However, wouldn't this be evidence not only of the patient's condition, but also of the conditions of the clinic and how its staff work?

3. The person has the right to be an altruist.

What is meant here is that the patient’s torment forces the compassion and suffering of his loved ones and, in general, those who are near his bed, as well as the fact that through euthanasia he will be able to save the financial resources that his relatives could use. He, finally, realizing the hopelessness of his situation, may want the efforts and resources that his treatment requires to be directed to someone else - someone who can really be helped. A person, of course, has the right to be an altruist, but it does not follow from this that that he should deny the same right to others - relatives, medical staff, etc.

4. "Economic" argument. It is sometimes stated that treatment and maintenance of the doomed takes a lot of money from society, which could, by legalizing euthanasia, be used more rationally. Apart from the fact that economic considerations are not always an acceptable argument when discussing moral issues, it is also necessary to note the following. This kind of argumentation is dangerously close to the considerations that guided the Nazis when implementing their inhumane programs for “health improvement of the nation.” To this we can also add that, according to some calculations, the real cost savings with the widespread introduction of active euthanasia would turn out to be vanishingly small.

Let us now turn to the arguments of opponents of active euthanasia.

1. Active euthanasia is an attack on the eternal value of human life. Not only Christianity, but also in all other religious denominations and as one of the highest values ​​is sanctity of human life, and therefore suicide and euthanasia are seen as a violation of God's zero. Of course, for non-religious people this argument will not be convincing. However, in fact, this value is deeply rooted in culture and is a very, very strong moral requirement, including for atheists, so if in some society such a requirement is violated en masse, this is evidence of its deep moral degradation. We all, of course, hear too often about numerous situations where this value is shamelessly violated. But legalization any practice of destroying human lives (in our case, the practice of active euthanasia), that is, turning it into an accepted, sanctioned by society, is fraught with the deepest shock to the entire normative-value order, only thanks to the existence of which people continue to remain human.

2. Opportunity diagnostic and prognostic error of the doctor. We have before us a fairly strong argument, so that where active euthanasia is legalized in one form or another, its implementation in each case requires independent confirmation of the original diagnosis and prognosis.

Opportunity the emergence of new medications and treatments. Sometimes hope for such a new remedy borders on belief in a miracle, but it is hardly reasonable to subject a terminally ill person or his loved ones to moral condemnation who believe in the possibility of a miracle. The effectiveness of this argument, by the way, is also manifested in the fact that often terminally ill people look for the last option in turning to so-called “alternative” medicine.

Availability effective painkillers. It can be argued that the use of such drugs, unfortunately, is contraindicated for certain patients. In addition, at best, they relieve physical pain, but do not free the bedridden patient from the painful constant dependence on others.

Risk abuse by staff. The point is that To If active euthanasia is legalized, medical personnel will be tempted to use it not so much based on the interests and desires of the patient, but on other, much less humane, considerations. In the numerous discussions about euthanasia that flare up from time to time in our press, this argument is used, perhaps, more often than any other.

Argument "inclined plane". In some ways it is close to the previous one. Its essence is as follows: as soon as euthanasia is legalized, then, even if the law spells out strict requirements for its practical implementation, real life situations will constantly arise “on the verge” of legal requirements. Gradual minor deviations will erode the strictness of the law and will ultimately lead to uncontrolled processes, so that euthanasia will be carried out not out of compassion, but in the name of completely different goals.

One should also take into account the special circumstance that makes the legalization of active euthanasia impossible in modern Russia. As we already know, supporters of active euthanasia insist that it is the exercise of the patient’s free will, his conscious and informed choice. Such a choice, meanwhile (remember Chapter 1), necessarily presupposes that the patient has accurate, objective information about the diagnosis and tragic prognosis of the disease. The practice of domestic healthcare, however, is such that the concept of “holy lies” continues to prevail in it - information, as a rule, is hidden from the patient. This means that in fact, Russian patients usually do not have the opportunity to freely choose in cases where it makes sense to talk about euthanasia.