Discussions about euthanasia "flare up" with concrete examples, when the whole society argues that it is kinder to give a chance to the hopeless or to save him from suffering. But the main problem of the legalization of euthanasia is the contradiction between the prohibition of it and its existence. As with drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, etc. Prohibiting does not mean solving the problem.
Despite the fact that the term “euthanasia” was introduced in the 16th century, there is still no definitive answer to this question. Kazakhstan, like many countries of the world, preferred to attribute the issue of euthanasia to taboo topics.
Today, this method of interrupting the life of a hopelessly ill person has been legalized in a number of European countries (Holland, Belgium, Switzerland), and also legalized in the only US state - Oregon. There are heated debates about humanity and the desirability of euthanasia throughout the world, including in Central Asia. Today, there are more and more supporters of permission to use euthanasia in the mills of Central Asia.
The pioneer of this concept was the philosopher Francis Bacon. Then he called it simply - "Easy, painless death." It is believed that the well-known ritual of the Spartans: killing weak babies and wounded soldiers also applies to euthanasia.
“Good death”, namely, this is how a beautiful Greek word is translated into Russian, is one of the main stumbling blocks for the moral, ethical and legal issues of humanity today.
Russian lawyers who faced the problem of legalizing euthanasia for a long time could not decide on which article of the Criminal Code to rely on. Thus, a new wave of discussions caused a high-profile case of two girls, quite schoolgirls, who killed their neighbor out of pity for her suffering and were convicted of premeditated murder.
In Kazakhstan, the Law on the Protection of the Health of Citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan prohibits the implementation of euthanasia by medical personnel. It also says that the supporting equipment can be turned off only in case of a death statement. However, anonymous surveys of medical workers indicate that there are cases of the use of euthanasia in the practice of physicians without a formal statement about it and, therefore, with impunity. That is, the prohibition of euthanasia does not mean that it is not in our society.
The question of euthanasia is one of the most difficult questions of medical ethics. Does the doctor have the right to accelerate the outcome in the event that the patient's condition is hopeless and the extension of life is impossible? Can a doctor take responsibility and save his patient from suffering? There is no single opinion on these questions. So, for example, Olga Mashkunova, Candidate of Medical Sciences, Associate Professor at the Department of Kazakhstan National Medical University (KazNMU), is categorically opposed to the introduction of euthanasia in Kazakhstan. The goal of medicine, in her opinion, is the extension of life, help in maintaining health, and not care. “Medicine, as science has not yet reached such a degree of perfection, to determine one hundred percent prognosis of the disease. Practice cases show that even the seemingly hopeless patients recovered, ”she believes.
Dulat Polimbetov, professor of the internship department in therapy, doctor of medical sciences disagrees with this opinion: “Euthanasia allows the doctor to be humane. There are such cases when, without pain in the heart, you cannot enter the ward and see what torment is tormenting the patient. This is such a torment! And if the doctor is given the right to stop this suffering, it seems to me that it is more humane than to wait for the person to die out of his own life. ”
By the way, in Tashkent, among 125 doctors, a survey was conducted on the topic of attitudes towards euthanasia. It turned out that only a third of doctors do not allow it, under any circumstances. And more than half refused to answer the question posed unequivocally. In Uzbekistan, there is no special legislation on the issue of euthanasia, there is simply an Article on the right to refuse medical intervention. It turns out that active euthanasia (conducted directly with the participation of doctors) is not considered at all, and passive (refusal of further treatment or intervention of medicine) is allowed and even legalized? In other words: “if you want to die, do it at home and do not shift the responsibility to the doctors.
But in the United States with such a survey, most doctors do not want to legalize euthanasia only because they will be responsible, not the patient, who asked to apply euthanasia to himself. When interviewing doctors in other countries where the "pleasant death" is prohibited by law, it was found that, again, most do not agree to take the "deadly" responsibility, although they admit the use of euthanasia to themselves. In this case, Uzbekistan has acted wiser: there is no law on prohibition, on permission, too. There are no articles in the Criminal Code either, but everyone has the right to refuse medical assistance. "I ask you to lay the responsibility for my death upon myself."
The legal aspect of the problem was commented upon by Oasis Sergey Vlasenko, senior lawyer of the Media Support Center of the American Bar Association: “If a person is in such a position that it is already irreparable, he should have the right to die. Theoretically, everyone has the right to life, and, consequently, to die, but it is quite another thing that in practice it is not legal to apply this right in Kazakhstan. If the patient himself is no longer able to give a refusal or consent, this right is automatically transferred to his relatives. Personally, my opinion is that the right to die should be. And each of us should have the right to decide how and when to die. But here the question of ethical morality plays an important role. Medicine today does not stand still, and perhaps tomorrow we will be able to treat hopelessly sick patients. ”
Studies show that, in practice, requests for euthanasia rarely come from the patients themselves. More often, their relatives ask for it. Doctors react to it differently, but as anonymous experiments have found out, they most often go to a meeting.
Russia has passed a law banning the use of euthanasia in medical practice and in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, euthanasia is an intentional murder. Approximately half of Russians consider legal killings to be justified, but their opponents do not trust doctors in diagnosing and others. The Orthodox Church is categorically against euthanasia.
The Deputy High Mufti of Kazakhstan, the rector of the Islamic Institute of the Republic of Kazakhstan Sheikh ul-Islam Haji Alsabekov is also unequivocal in his attitude to this problem: “Euthanasia is considered suicide. And as in any religion, in Islam it is the most terrible sin. Allah gave us a chance to be cleansed from sins on earth, and we should remember this even before death. If sufferings and torments are sent by the prophet, then this is the will of our Most High, and no one has the right to interfere with the will of Allah. The doctor takes upon himself this sin, the relatives take this sin upon themselves, and there is no forgiveness for them. Euthanasia is not humanity and not pity, it is the weakness of the spirit of everyone who is faced with the desire to resort to it. ”
Hello Katerina. The article is very good indeed, I myself thought about this question more than once, I discussed it with friends. I liked your style of presentation - an unbiased attitude to the issue and coverage of the issue by covering public opinion polls. Thank.