The Ethics Of Euthanasia. (Arguments — страница 3

  • Просмотров 232
  • Скачиваний 5
  • Размер файла 20
    Кб

death. On the contrary, there are cases where doctors do not respect their Oath and put into practice euthanasia to people for their own benefit or as they say for scientific gain . Doctor Death , Jack Kevorkian, is a grand example. The newspaper New Republic (Betzhold M., p. 22), has written for the famous doctor that he manipulates deaths for scientific gain. Kevorkian has said that euthanasia is just the first step; what he finds the most satisfying is the prospect of making possible the performance of invaluable experiments. For the legal matter, the third base of ethics of euthanasia, we can concentrate on the issue of the legalization. According to a Greek professor of medicine (Avramedes, p. 68), the fundamental law of the state is obliged to protect the human life, born

or unborn, because this is the uppermost human value and right whose violator is punished with the major punishment. About this issue, R. Dworkin (p. 181) claims that the current legislation in most countries does not vary between the state of not being kept alive and being killed. Questions like what are the risks that people will ask to be killed after a misdiagnosis? or that they will die before new treatments are discovered or developed that would have saved their lives if they had waited? , make the laws of all western countries (except, in practice, The Netherlands) to prohibit doctors or others from directly killing people at their own request, by injecting an immediately lethal poison, for example. As S. Drakopoulos (p. 32), said even in homicide with consent that means

with the patient s agreement, there still is a punishment with equity. Our fundamental law has set up some conditions in order to define the homicide with consent like the verification that the disease is incurable, the request of the patient for euthanasia is made after serious thought, and that the perpetrator should be aware of the disease and to act with ruth for the patient. However, M. Marty and R. Hamel (p. 44- 45), pose some serious questions about the likelihood of the legislation: It may be premature to move to that direction now. There is a real danger in forging ahead with legislation without having considered ( ) euthanasia in all its breadth and depth. ( ) Does it have its limits? Have we sufficiently thought through the probable and possible consequences, good and

bad, of both allowing and disallowing these measures? ( ) Have all reasonable alternatives been tried? Could it be that legalized euthanasia will leave unresolved the root problems associated with care of the terminally ill and dying, and deal with only the symptoms? How would a policy of legalized euthanasia be reconciled with basic moral convictions as well as with the beliefs of most religious traditions? Many such considerations deserve to be thought through before we try to settle the issue through legislation . The state and the society ought to offer compassion and sympathy to the dying man and not death. Because, nothing and nobody can enable the murder of an innocent man, whose life does not belong to anybody not even to him (Avramedes, p.91- 92). The doctor everyday,

poises and counts the heavy moments of the passage from life to death, without any power to hamper this line knowing that the intimate fibers that link life with the other side are in the hands of someone Else. The One that gave them. So, the doctor knows that he should never presume that an illness is incurable, considering the probability of a mistake, a surprise, a miracle. On the other hand, we perceive the revulsion of the people who support the act of euthanasia when the end concerns themselves. It is different to think for euthanasia cold-bloodedly than when you suffer. Time and Life count differently then. Unappreciated feelings come back, rise, and lighten. The whole life is being transvalued, the spirit is getting smoother, and the rivals turn down. Nobody intimates the

soul s sensitive tosses and gambols a little while before the Final Exit. The Great Mystery of Life is Given, not granted. Everyone should serve it, each one from his angle; especially the Doctor. _ BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Avramedes, Athanasios. Euthanasia. Nea Smyrni: Akritas, 1995 2. Betzold, Michael. The selling of Doctor Death. New Republic 26th May 1997: pp. 22- 28. 3. Burnell, George. Final Choices: To Live or To Die in an Age of Medical Technology. New York: Plenum Press, 1993 4. Drakopoulos, Spyridon. Euthanasia. Piraeki Ekklisia October 1992: pp. 30-33 5. Dworkin, Ronald M. Life s Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom. 1st ed. New York: Vintage Books, 1994 6. Hamel, Ron et al. Choosing Death: Active Euthanasia, Religion, and the Public Debate.