The word "euthanasia" is so taboo polluted that it embodies almost deadly explosive. Ideological emotions prevent so far a responsible, based on objective facts, and above all of humanity committed discussion.
An increasingly higher life expectancy is driving increasingly frequent long-term care and infirmity, the increasing life expectancy at age mean individually and socially a long suffering, we will not be fulfilling financial performance of the working generation.
Despite the archaic and modernist displacement mechanism moves the dying, less the death into the focal point of every individual, and who speaks from a liberal-democratic order will not continue to come in the longer term by: "Right to a dignified and pain-minimizing one's own death."
the indispensable basis for this is the right to life, and that a life of dignity, autonomy, liberty and democracy, equality of anchoring, which accepts no ideologically constricting paternalism that originated with an ethic of human dignity with a binding and inviolable value towards all religious philosophies submission.
The tale of gods, ultimately as a guarantor of the disease, belong in the philosophical panopticon.
contrast, human dignity is above all patriotism, above political calculations and commands without Any exception, no one to kill against his will (special case: self-defense.).
This is the only ethic that clearly aligns itself on the individual and not in ideas, ideologies, rulers or fashion - Ethics in the true sense.
The current medical ethics expressed shortly something like this. "Duty of the physician is to cure and not the killing," euthanasia
This is off the table.
Recently, a reluctance creeps into the discussion because they weigh from between "active" and "passive" euthanasia. The active assistance by administering a lethal medicine is outlawed, the passive assistance by terminating life-prolonging Action enters the realm of possibility.
sends While in general for military action as a matter of course and unscrupulous young people to their deaths, they in turn sent to kill, is denied in an obvious hypocrisy incurable seriously ill and elderly craves them death. And this is what die-meaning people in a hopeless situation objectively the gentle mercy to treat, as in veterinary medicine has long been customary.
It can not be, these worthy painless death, citing risks of abuse and by references to the Third Reich did to prevent further criminalize euthanasia.
Given the increasing Scale of the suffering it is the overriding moral obligation of a humane society, to create the appropriate legal and human health safeguards to prevent abuse, as far as possible avoid to get the best pain relief and to pay shortening.
This requires clearly defined set of options available to the free will of every man, with regular written updates during the period of his full mental awareness.
It needs to be established network of decisions, composed of stakeholders (advance directives), relatives, doctors, lawyers, where appropriate, other expert.
A Society that prides itself on the use of Hightec must also use this apparatus to the benefit of sufferers so that meaningless suffering has a decent light end.
Who in his religious faith would rather languish suffering, which may be imposed as consistently otherwise.
It is about nothing less than the self-determined dignified own death. Who asks for active help, must get in a safe social setting.
Everything else is a failure to render assistance.
0 comments:
Post a Comment