Introductuion
The problem, of euthanasia raises a great deal of controversy. Some people claim that it is inherently wrong while others strongly support the idea. Both views should be taken into account when considering the possibility of making it legal.
Main Text
The person who is in coma or whose reason is damaged, does not suffer, they are alive, active and happy in the astral body. They can live nearby, as a soul connected with the ground until it karma they will not be carried out up to the end. The astral brain functions separately from physical. The request of the patient to relieve them from Karma and sufferings that is clarification and healing, nobody gives the right to break life of a physical body. Such request needs to be regarded as a sign on weakness and consequently it is necessary for ignoring. In each person it is necessary to install courage for living in a physical body so long, as long it will exist natural by to live all karmas, good, bad and mixed that they do not send to following incarnation. “The representative of National Advice of Temples of India: “The concept of euthanasia is incompatible with the Indian moral code. It should be never approved. It is necessary to find more worthy and moral ways of the help incurable patient” (Moreno, 1995).
The professor of philosophy of the State University of State of Oregon Kortni S.Kempbell has expressed the opinion, having told: “The spiritual purpose of clearing can become also the moral reason of search of death and acceleration of time of its approach. Truncation of a life can be permissible only when physical sufferings stir to realization of self-checking and clearness of consciousness. Or lethargic dream, the mind and consciousness can obscure a pain at approach of death. Heavy sufferings also can lead to that the person will be so adhered to the material life (a corporal condition) that cannot reach the maximum spiritual purpose of clearing of a material world. Reasonings on the superiority of the spiritual purposes of clearing or compassion concerning preservation of a life also address to euthanasia on means of a killing injection. Teachers Hindu and the Buddhism have found support for this purpose so-called active euthanasia in the traditions, reflecting value of death as doors to clearing, the culminations of a life in a detachment from a material world. Then they do a step forward, connecting compassion with self-comparison: the person should act with others how would like, that acted with it. Therefore euthanasia it is possible to consider as the certificate of compassion or “an injection of mercy” for the dying person aspiring to the maximum applicability of human destiny – to clearing. Euthanasia mentions a moral question as the medicine is entered to the person who is being a unconsciousness and unable to realize approach of death. The person does not realize, during which moment it will be most sensitive and susceptible to spiritual doctrines and senses. For these reasons natural approach of death is more preferable with moral and religious point of view”.
The majority of scientists of the world have come to conclusion, that euthanasia does not contradict universal principles, but the final decision should belong to the patient, and in case of incompetence of the last – to its relatives. It seems this point of view to me is more humane. But I repeat, euthanasia concerns to the intense dilemmas of bioethics when convincing arguments pro and contra ” collide in own way (Snyder, 2006).
The professor of medical ethics in resignation and a former member of the commission on ethics of the British medical association Len Doyal: ” Physicians can not recognize it and give out the actions for ” simplification of sufferings of patients “, however refusal of the further support of biological existence of the patients who are being a unconsciousness, from the moral point of view is equivalent active euthanasia “…” If doctors in a condition to make a decision on inexpediency of the further maintenance of a life of incapacitated patients, as they consider what to live it there is no need, what for without the slightest grounds to postpone their death? ”
Executive director of English public organization ” For worthy death ” (Dignity in Dying) Deborah Ennets: “Organization” For worthy death “considers, that decisions on the termination of a life and treatment should be based on the realized will of incurably sick people…. The people, afraid to lose capacity in the future, can provide execution of the will, made to the corresponding will”(Moreno, 1995).
The parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PASS) has accepted the resolution on euthanasia, having acted categorically against the going termination of someone’s life. As it is marked in the document, the Assembly is concerned by that practises medical establishments of some countries euthanasia without observance of rules or around of an official interdiction on its application, and in very large scales(Snyder, 2006).
The PASS suggests the countries-members of the Council of Europe to formulate and apply in practice the arch corrected on rendering assistance to incurable patients, long time being in extremely grave condition. The assembly has supported wider application of supporting symptomatic treatment with a view of simplification of sufferings of patients, for creation of a corresponding technique and adaptations on care incurably sick and use of specially trained personnel. Besides the European members of parliament suggest strengthening measures on prevention of suicides among incurably sick. The assembly is measured to achieve recognition for each patient of the right to receive the full information on the condition, the rights to immediate acquaintance with opinion of other independent doctor and the right to refusal of the offered treatment. The PASS, recognizing religious and cultural distinctions in countries-members of the Council of Europe, that less recommended to study experience of the Netherlands and Belgium in the field of euthanasia.
In conclusion, I would like to say that it is everyone’s natural right to continue living. Therefore making euthanasia legal would promote a lack of respect for human life. Though modern medicine is undeniably progressing, it does not complete knowledge. In many cases the decision about discontinuing a person’s life can be wrong and overhasty as it often happens that the patients who seemingly have no chance on recovery survive (Medica Ethics, 2008).
Another argument against euthanasia is its ethical nature. Many doctors face a conflict between the duty to sustain life and the obligation to relieve suffering. However, suffering is a natural part of everyone’s life and when viewed from this perspective, doctors who agree to inflict death may be simply called murderers.
When we take into consideration the great value of life, the irreversibility of death and he imperfection of medicine, we may probably conclude that legal euthanasia may cause more harm than good but the final decision belongs to us.
References
Medica Ethics (2008), Accounts of the Cases That Shaped and Define Medical Ethics , Fifth Edition McGraw-Hill Companies.
Moreno Jonathan(1995), Arguing Euthanasia: The Controversy Over Mercy Killing, Assisted Suicide, And The “Right To Die”, Touchstone.
Snyder Carrie L. (2006), Euthanasia (Opposing Viewpoints), Greenhaven Press.