Nowadays humanity makes really important steps on different sphere of life. It means that our everyday routine becomes more comfortable. Moreover, some of previously unrealistic rights are being realized now. Especially, in the 21st century we can talk about the formation of the fourth generation of human rights, associated with scientific discoveries in the field of microbiology, medicine, genetics, etc. These rights are the result of interference in the psycho-physiological sphere of human life. For example, a woman's right to artificial insemination and carrying a child for another family, growing human organs from her stem cells, sex reassignment, organ transplantation, use of virtual reality, same sex marriages, child-free family, life independent of government interference by religious, moral views.
So, the main purpose of this essay is giving definition about such term as «euthanasia» and its types. Also compare various of arguments which means different point of views about that theme.
Firstly, I’d like to give the definition of euthanasia and it’s legislative consolidation. Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of a patient to limit the patient’s suffering. The patient in question would typically be terminally ill or experiencing great pain and suffering. The word “euthanasia” itself comes from the Greek words “eu” (good) and “thanatos” (death). The idea is that instead of condemning someone to a slow, painful, or undignified death, euthanasia would allow the patient to experience a relatively “good death. Modern science offers us many definitions of euthanasia. The British Encyclopedia refers to euthanasia as "mercy killing" - the act or practice of obtaining a painless death for those suffering pain during incurable illness or physical impairment. For example, Julia Pavlova has reasonably drawn attention to the fact that the analysis of the category of "euthanasia" for the lawyer cannot be limited to the meaning of "easy, painless death"; the great importance here is that such death corresponds to the inner will of the dying person (his/her parents) and is carried out with the assistance of a medical officer [1, p.42]. I agree with her opinion and I think that such definition one of the most suitable.
Some of European countries has enacted laws to regulate the act of withholding or withdrawing medical treatment with the effect of hastening death. These laws provide for instruments that allow, in a formal and binding manner, the previously expressed wishes of competent adults to continue to have influence over the kind of treatment they receive (or do not receive) when they lose competence. Futhermore, no piece of legislation characterises such practices as euthanasia. Indeed, as with members of the medical profession, certain government departments have explicitly stated that such instruments do not permit euthanasia. However, again, such statements seem to be focused on active, rather than passive euthanasia. Moreover, when we talking about Ukraine it has its own legislation. The Law of Ukraine "Fundamentals of Health Care Legislation" in part 3 of article 52 states that medical workers are prohibited from euthanasia - the intentional acceleration of death or death of terminally ill patients in order to terminate their suffering [2]. It means that Ukraine doen`t consider euthanasia as a way of exercising and enjoyment of their rights now.
Secondly, for better understanding this theme I’d like to put out types of euthanasia. There are various types of euthanasia:
1. Active euthanasia - something is done to a person to make them die more quickly, and giving drugs with the intention of bringing about death.
2. Passive euthanasia - any form of treatment that might extend a person's life is withdrawn, a life support machine is turned off, or a feeding tube is removed. This is legally allowed in the UK, and so would not be called euthanasia.
3. Voluntary euthanasia - a person asks for their own life to be ended.
4. Non-voluntary euthanasia - a person cannot make a decision about euthanasia or cannot make their wishes known, and so someone else, for example a doctor or a family member decides that it would be in the person's best interest if their life was ended. For example, if the person is in a coma.
5. Involuntary euthanasia - a person wants to live, but someone else, a doctor or a family member, decides that it would be in the person's best interest if their life was ended. For example, if a person has had an accident that will lead to imminent and painful death, a decision might be made to end their life even if the person wanted to live.
6. Assisted suicide - deliberately assisting or encouraging another person to end their own life.
So, there are many types of eythanasia and all of them are important and haven’t implemented yet in all countries. Also no less important are the alternatives to euthanasia. There are two main alternatives to euthanasia: 1) hospice - this is where specialist medical staff look after the terminally ill. Palliative drugs are used to help ensure that the person does not suffer any more pain than is absolutely necessary. Staff are able to talk with patients about death and dying and any fears they may have. They are also available to support the family of the dying person. 2) Refusing treatment - for example in the UK all adults have the right to refuse treatment as long as they have the capacity to understand the situation they are in and to make an informed decision.
At the end of researching on this topic, I’d like to compare some arguments about legalising active voluntary euthanasia. One of the most important aspect is a role of the doctor. Arguments against the legalisation of active voluntary euthanasia include the view that such practices undermine the ‘role of the doctor’ as a ‘healer’, as characterised by the Hippocratic Oath. When the medical profession becomes involved in killing, the delicate trust relationship between a patient and doctor is undermined. People trust their lives to doctors and health care workers in the knowledge that they are dedicated to the preservation of life, to healing, to caring. This after all is the basis of the Hippocratic tradition. The Hippocratic Oath includes the commitment not to kill a patient, even if the patient requests such a course. It is really interesting argument and actually has its confirmations. As opposed to this opinion there are many arguments in favour of euthanasia. Most of scholars usually consider the right to euthanasia as an integral part of the right to life, as well as a substantive component, which is included in the right to respect for private life. Modern studies in the field of personal non-property rights distinguish as a constituent element of the right to life - the right to terminate life at one's own will - and insist on considering it in organic unity with the right to life [3, p. 370]. In my opinion such as: human beings should have the right to be able to decide when and how they die (self-determination), euthanasia enables a person to die with dignity and in control of their situation, death is a private matter and the state should not interfere with the individual's right to die, it is expensive to keep people alive when there is no cure for their illness (euthanasia would release precious resources to treat people who could live) and one of the most important aspect is that family and friends would be spared the pain of seeing their loved one suffer a long-drawn-out death.
In conclusion, I can confidently say that issue about euthanasia still remains unresolved. There are many proofs of each points of views, and its normal. Every country should makes a decision about that and does it according to the consciousness of their citizens. We have all opportunities for development in this case. But we actually need competent legislation and refinements of medicine.
References:
1. Podkovenko T.Yu. Candidate of Law, Associate Professor of Theory and History of State and Law, TNEU // Euthanasia in Ukraine: legal aspects of legalization. Legal scientific electronic journal. 2017. №1. Pp. 41-45
2. Electronic resource: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2801-12#Text
3. Oleksienko A.V, 5th year student of the Institute of Training for Justice of Ukraine of the Yaroslav the Wise National University of Law and D.O Chebukina, 5th year student of the Institute of Personnel Training for the Justice of Ukraine of the Yaroslav the Wise National Law University of Ukraine // PROBLEM APPLIED EUTANASIA THROUGH THE PRISM OF ECHR PRACTICE. Legal scientific electronic journal. 2021. №3. Pp. 369-372
________________________
Науковий керівник: Заморська Любов Ігорівна, доктор юридичних наук, доцент кафедри теорії прав і прав людини Чернівецького національного університету імені Юрія Федьковича
|
Ця робота ліцензується відповідно до Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Знайшли помилку? Виділіть помилковий текст і натисніть Ctrl + Enter
