Over many years the topic of euthanasia causes mixed reactions in society. Attention to the issue of euthanasia has increased with the development of social progress, and in particular - the technology of life support for seriously ill people. Relevance of the topic cannot be overestimated, firstly, due to the fact that it is associated with the most expensive thing a man can have - his life, and secondly - because of poor knowledge of the problem, its lack of lighting in the works of lawyers and almost and big law gaps in the legislation.
Numerous debates on this subject are constantly breaking out among physicians, lawyers, psychologists, politicians, religious leaders. However, a clear answer to the question of justification for the practice of euthanasia was not found. This issue splits nowadays society between those who support and those who do not support euthanasia.(Behuniak, S. (2011) pp. 17-32)
Events of the past year only emphasize the urgency of the problem of euthanasia. In the early 2005, in the US there was a heated debate around the death of American citizen Terri Schiavo, who was in a coma for 15 years that was caused by a clinical death and the subsequent irreversible changes in the brain (the consequences of severe stroke). By the decision of the Court of Florida adopted at the suit of her husband Michael Schiavo, she was disconnected from the artificial feeding, which meant delayed for a fortnight death of the patient. After this decision of the court, American society split into two camps of supporters and opponents of this decision, that was a kind of «soft euthanasia.» This example reflects the real attitude towards euthanasia in the international community that has split into uncompromising supporters and opponents of the euthanasia. Both camps give quite strong arguments, that fails all attempts to achieve any particular compromise.
At the beginning of the XX century German lawyer Karl Binding and psychiatrist Alfred Hoche suggested to understand the term «euthanasia» as the destruction of the so-called "inferior" life. Such an interpretation of the concept of euthanasia has been applied in Hitler's Germany, where the decree of September 1, 1939 introduced the program "Euthanasia", which had terrible consequences - put to death hundreds of thousands of mentally retarded, mentally ill people, epileptics, patients suffering from senility and various organic neurological disorders (stroke, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, brain tumor), the people who were considered useless to society, and were provided with relatively easy death in the gas chambers.
English philosopher Francis Bacon to refer to an easy painless death coined the term "euthanasia" (from the Greek. Euthanasia, eu - well, thanatos - death), that is a good, quiet and easy death, without pain and suffering. Literally, the term "euthanasia" is translated as «to die with blessing» , but the term has come to mean not only the "good" death itself, but as its infliction.
Peter Allmark finds it important to understand what is death, what is dignity, and what does the term «death with dignity» actually means. He pays a lot of attention in his article to finding the right definitions to this key terms. (Allmark, P. (2002) 255-257)
In the medical, philosophical and law literature, it has been interpreted in different ways: "painless, gentle and relieving suffering irreversible outcome into oblivion"; "Killing terminally ill people at their request, in order to end the suffering"; "Conscious action, leading to the death of hopelessly sick person a relatively quick and painless way to end the suffering." None of the above definition can not be considered exhaustive, as the one that includes all the features and covers of all possible situations somehow connected with euthanasia. The first definition does not allow to distinguish euthanasia from suicide perpetrated without the participation of another person. The second does not include cases where the patient is unable to express his request (when in a coma). The third definition contains a reference to the action, leading to death, and does not cover cases of deliberate omission of a doctor with a view to not interfere with the natural course of events and the death of the patient. None of the definitions does not mention the subject, who should be responsible for carrying out euthanasia. (Stengel, E. (n.d.), 1334-1335)
The problem of euthanasia is not new and has not appeared suddenly. However since the time of Hippocrates to our days traditional medical ethics include a ban: «I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.» More recently, however, doctors increasingly appear to resort to this practice, at least when the patient asks by himself about death. It is appropriate to speak about euthanasia only when we are dealing with an intentional infliction of death. In one case, euthanasia takes away the life of hopelessly, terminally ill persons in order to save this person from unnecessary suffering - either through direct intervention or «leaving him to die» by stopping artificial nutrition of the patient. In another case, a newborn child with severe disabilities is deprived of life.
The literature offers many options to the moral evaluation of euthanasia. Most authors support the methods of passive euthanasia and reject any possibility of applying active euthanasia. However, there is also the opposite opinion. James Rachels a widely recognized American philosopher has harshly criticized the decision of the American Medical Association which states: « The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another - merciful killing - is contrary to the very purpose of the medical profession and policies of the American medical Association.» J. Rachels believes that if the patient who is conscious, aware that his days were numbered, in the case he no longer can endure physical suffering and asks the doctor to hasten his death, the doctor should not perform the request by simply stopping the treatment (passive euthanasia), the patient sufferings may only increase. In this situation, lethal injection (active euthanasia) according to James. Rachels is much more humane. (Rachels, J. (1986), pp.44-48)
Secondly, proponents of euthanasia postulate that life can be considered good as long as it has a decent form, exists in the field of culture, moral relations. Degraded to a purely vital, prehuman level, it is deprived of ethical sanction and can be regarded as an object, a thing, and therefore the question of its termination - nothing more than the question of whether to cut down a tree that has dried up.
This argument affects primarily the emotional emptiness, because in addition to the external aspects of human life, there is its inner side. And to what would zoological, plant level is virtually no degraded, it does not mean that a person is ready to treat yourself or your family in this state as well, as it relates to a dry tree or a thistle. It is appropriate to recall the dead man's relation to the remains of their brethren: the graves are the subject of respect, and it is considered as the ratio of those people, a reminder of which they are part. If the moral attitude toward man covers his remains, how much more it should be extended to the living body, even warped with disease. (Harris, N. (2005). pp.33-34)
At third, helping someone to improve his position is always morally acceptable. If the killing will improve anyone's situation and the person wants to be deprived of life, such a killing cannot be regarded as causing harm to that person deserved. And what, then, a voluntary euthanasia is, if not this?
Usually people who are against the practice of euthanasia, refer to the principle of the sanctity of all life as unique. Immanuel Kant makes a philosophical defense of this uniqueness by his categorical imperative. Formulated in simple words, its principle is that we must always consider intelligent beings as the ultimate goal rather than means to something else, as some "intermediate stage". I do not have the right to terminate your life just because it is too difficult for you. Kant might add that you cannot put an end to your life because it has become unbearable to you. This act will use the will to put an end to the will that it considered to be contrary to our rational nature. Those who apply the principle of the sanctity of life to the issue of euthanasia, obviously believe that the termination of life is morally wrong in all circumstances.(Kant, I., & Abbott, T. (n.d.). pp. 66-68)
The second question that affect philosophers in relation to euthanasia - is the difference between killing and allowing to die. Some authors argue that passive euthanasia is not euthanasia in general, but this approach is only about postponing the problem. Even if permission to die is not euthanasia, it is necessary to show why this permission is moral and acceptable. Richard M. Friedenberg in his article «Euthanasia» cites Fuchs’ position that there is a big difference between the term «kill» and the term «stop treatment». (Friedenberg, R. (n.d.) pp.576-580)
James Rachels in his classic work on this distinction claims that permission to die, unlike murder, should not contain a moral burden. He believes that if the intentions and consequences thereof are similar to each other, then the action is reprehensible. It follows that active euthanasia ceteris paribus is no worse than passive.
There is no need to prove that killing is sometimes even more humane than letting die to reject the difference, the AMA has created. If in both cases, the intention is that the patient shall doe, one operation cannot be considered more morally acceptable than the other.
References
Kant, I., & Abbott, T. (n.d.). Kant's critique of practical reason: And other works on the theory of ethics (Sixth ed.).
Rachels, J. (1986). The end of life: Euthanasia and morality. Oxford [Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press.
Harris, N. (2005). The ethics of euthanasia. San Diego: Thomson/Gale ;.
Stengel, E. (n.d.). EUTHANASIA: Euthanasia and the Right to Death. The Case for Voluntary Euthanasia. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 1334-1335.
Gentzler, J. (n.d.). What is a Death With Dignity? The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 461-487.
Friedenberg, R. (n.d.). Euthanasia. Radiology, 576-580.
Allmark, P. (2002). Death with dignity. Journal Of Medical Ethics, 28(4), 255-257. doi:10.1136/jme.28.4.255
Behuniak, S. (2011). Death with “dignity”. Politics And The Life Sciences, 30(1), 17-32. doi:10.2990/30_1_17
