The Ethics Of Euthanasia. (Arguments — страница 2

  • Просмотров 230
  • Скачиваний 5
  • Размер файла 20

general, instinctive convictions about whether, why, and how any human life has intrinsic value. Therefore, supporting the religious viewpoint we would represent a large portion of the demurrers of euthanasia. The mystery of life continues to tease us even after its end. The intercession of the man into this unknown process that leads the creatures towards their postmortem beginning of another life, the substitution of the Life-giver s authority by the man, it isn t just an act of disrespect, but an impermissible and arbitrary interference of the fiddling creature in God s will. As an ethicist (+arakas, p. 92- 94) in the U.S. writes, God is the giver of life, and in His hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind (Job 12:10). To wrongfully take the life

of an innocent person is murder and is condemned as a sin (Exodus 20:13). ( ) The only good death for the Christian is the peaceful acceptance of the end of his or her life with faith and trust in God and the promise of Resurrection . Nevertheless, we shouldn t forget that in vital and crucial moments in our lives, we don t easily loose our hope for a miracle, which in some cases happens. Looking through the moral aspects of euthanasia, we can divide them in two points of view: of the euthanized (patient) and his environment, and of the responsible doctor. Starting with the moral analysis of the patient who desires to go through euthanasia, we could say that his or her wish has some logical arguments. This wish, according to G. M. Burnell (p. 251), comes from the need of the

patient to avoid or end the unbearable pain during a terminal illness, to have a better quality of life, or to prevent unnecessary financial burden on his family. However, some equally logical questions emerge. Do the people who are actually contemplating euthanasia for themselves generally put their requests in these terms? Or are they not rather looking for a way to end their troubles and pains? One can sympathize with such a motive, out of compassion, but can one admire it, out of respect? Is it really dignified to seek to escape from troubles to oneself? Is there, to repeat, not more dignity in courage than in its absence? Euthanasia for one s own dignity is, at best, paradoxical, even self-contradictory: How can I honor myself by making myself nothing? Even if dignity were

to consist solely in autonomy, is it not an embarrassment to claim that autonomy reaches its zenith precisely as it disappears? Leon R. Kass (p. 139) in his article about death with dignity, says: The deaths we most admire are those of people who, knowing that they are dying, face the fact frontally and act accordingly: They set their affairs in order; they arrange what could be final meetings with their loved ones, and yet, with strength of soul and a small reservoir of hope, they continue to live and work and love as much as they can for as long as they can . There is also another danger. The medical experience has taught that the incurable man may ask for his end under the state of unbearable suffering, but when his pains shrink or stop, life reappears and the appeal is now

for its preservation and not for its ending. In addition, the intolerable pressure of the relatives generates an amount of questions and suspicions, especially when financial and hereditary interests coexist. To continue with the doctors position on the subject, we must first underline that the Hippocratic oath that is made from the majority of the doctors around the world, and has lead and still leads their consciences for centuries, is outright, and starkly prohibitive to any act or attempt of euthanasia. We copy: I will neither give a deadly drug to anyone, if asked for, nor will I make suggestion to this effect (Drakopoulos, p. 32). According to an American doctor (Leon R. Kass, p. 136), killing patients even those who ask for death- violates the inner meaning of the art of

healing . Undebatably, there are also real and genuine signs of pity and compassion for our weak companion, parent, or child. And maybe most of us have been witnesses of such situations where the pen is unable to describe the deep emotions of dedication, affection, pain, and the appeal for relief in the eyes of both sides. And in the middle, the doctor who is standing incapable to stop the decay, is hovering above the hesitations of his heart and his conscience. In these difficult situations, the experience of the previous generations of the medicine teaches that the doctor on the one hand must use up all his scientific effort for the relief from the pain, and on the other hand should stand by the patient as the man who tenders the hope and not as his executioner who leads to