Stick to it and there will be hope! Many people choose euthanasia because they feel realistic despair. However, as long as my heart is still alive, my life will eventually get better.
It is rarely heard that someone committed suicide on the battlefield, perhaps because soldiers have seen the destruction of life more than anyone else and know how to cherish it. Before choosing euthanasia, please think about whether the problems we face are really more cruel than the battlefield!
Our parents gave us life. Who has the heart to let white-haired people watch their children die? Even if there is one in ten thousand hope, we should make every effort to live for our parents.
Whether you are in a vegetative state or terminally ill, as long as you have a breath, let people around you feel the existence of hope, just like the faint candlelight in the dark. Don't put out the candles in our hearts.
How many beggars in the street have no limbs! How many people have been fighting cancer for half their lives! I don't give up, I don't think about how to die, I just want to walk the long road of life.
What is more terrible than death is giving up the right to live. Sadness in the heart is greater than death, and those who die in the heart are the saddest.
Choosing euthanasia is the victory of death over courage; Choosing a strong face is the victory of courage over death.
In the long history of human civilization, the concept of death is constantly evolving. From the initial blind fear of death, to the passive acceptance of death, and finally to the active regulation of death, the psychological trajectory of human beings on the natural law of death embodies the sublimation of human understanding of the value of life and the strengthening of life protection.
In real life, what we have to do is not whether to accept death, but how to accept it. Euthanasia, a social problem, came into being with the development of the times. However, euthanasia is, after all, a complex and comprehensive social problem, involving medicine, ethics, morality, law, sociology, philosophy and many other fields.
The word "euthanasia" comes from Greek, meaning "happy" death. It includes two meanings, one is painless death; The second is painless fatal surgery;
In China, euthanasia is defined as: terminally ill patients are in a state of extreme mental and physical pain, and at the request of patients and their relatives and friends, with the consent of doctors, the patients end their lives in a painless state by humane methods;
Since the 1930s, some people in western countries have demanded that euthanasia be allowed by law, which triggered a big debate on whether it should be legalized.
The Netherlands is the first country to legalize euthanasia. In the Netherlands, 4000 people die every year from the so-called "legal death". But now many old people worry that they will be "killed" by hospital doctors.
Dutch law stipulates that there are three preconditions for euthanasia: doctors must first confirm that patients are suffering from "unbearable persistent pain", which cannot be alleviated by contemporary medical means; Doctors must take all possible treatments, but they are all declared invalid; Doctors must verify whether patients are euthanized voluntarily, and there must be no coercion or intimidation. Euthanasia is legal only if these three preconditions are met. However, according to Fan who has been a doctor for 27 years? Dr Sharon estimates that at least half of doctors in the Netherlands are still secretly euthanizing patients. He analyzed that because the reporting procedure is too complicated, some doctors prefer to operate illegally and euthanize patients without meeting the statutory premise.
Many opponents say that even if the above three conditions stipulated by law can be met, considering that the consciousness of seriously ill patients is often unclear, their relatives may urge doctors to euthanize in order to alleviate the suffering of patients, resulting in the involuntary death of some patients who are completely likely to be treated. In addition, doctors may also find a "legal explanation" for saving lives. They also said that according to the existing law, as long as the current technology is powerless, doctors can persuade patients to give up treatment and automatically "go to a dead end", which will lead to the stagnation of medical technology development. As one opponent said, "killing a life is not equal to treatment."
Jurisprudence: citizens have the right to choose the way of death.
Xu Jinghe, a doctor of law in Peking University, believes that the constitution stipulates that citizens' personal freedom and personal dignity are inviolable, which has a specific meaning. Individual citizens have the right to choose the way to live and the way to die under certain conditions. Euthanasia is a special way to punish life under special circumstances without violating the interests of the country, society and others. This kind of punishment has strict conditions and procedures. At present, euthanasia legislation in some European countries is a choice between traditional morality and modern law. Therefore, euthanasia is unconstitutional and lacks basic elements.
Song Gongde, a doctor of law at the National School of Administration, pointed out that although the Constitution stipulates that "citizens have the right to get material help from the state and society in case of old age, illness or loss of working ability", it is somewhat unrealistic to do so in our real life. As the saying goes, "there is no filial son before the bed for a long time" illustrates this point. Some experts also believe that this clause in the Constitution only shows that the state has the responsibility to help citizens prolong their lives, but it does not mean that the state can force citizens to prolong their lives, nor does it mean that the state cannot help citizens end their lives.
Ethics: "Euthanasia" violates the right to life.
From an ethical point of view, it is also ethical for citizens to carry out euthanasia when they are suffering from very irreversible physical diseases and voluntarily demand to end their lives. Song Gongde believes that the law should embody humanity in this respect. However, "euthanasia" has not been confirmed. What is the reason? First of all, under the existing legal conditions, "euthanasia" may lead to "intentional homicide". The patient's suicide will not affect others. However, if he wants to end his life, the medical staff and his family will help him meet his requirements. This is an act of "helping suicide" in the criminal law and is suspected of intentional homicide. Secondly, if euthanasia is confirmed by law, it may be used by some people to illegally deprive others of their lives. In addition, it is against the moral principle of the right to life to end other people's lives without legal permission when human understanding of diseases is still very limited.
Those who oppose the legalization of euthanasia believe that euthanasia is an unnatural act that violates the natural laws of birth, illness and death, and weakens the strength and courage of human beings to overcome disasters. At the same time, it is difficult to determine whether the patient really wants euthanasia, which is in danger of being abused.
While acknowledging the humanity and justice of euthanasia, some scholars in China put forward that China's social civilization, especially spiritual civilization, moral quality and humanistic consciousness level, is not enough to provide social and ethical protection for euthanasia; The medical welfare security system is not enough to provide social security for euthanasia; The moral status of medical practitioners is not enough to provide technical support for euthanasia; The overall social and legal situation in China is not enough to provide effective legal protection for the correct and proper application of euthanasia. Therefore, euthanasia should not be legalized.
Yang Lixin, author of Personal Rights Law: Euthanasia is a disguised violation of the right to life;
Illegal deprivation of a person's life violates the individual's right to life, social order and national interests, and is a challenge to the whole society and country. Therefore, the violation of the right to life should be punished by public law with the help of state coercion to protect the interests of individuals, society and the whole country.
Third, several viewpoints against euthanasia.
The duty of a doctor is to save lives. Therefore, all acts of terminating life are prohibited. "Twelve Proverbs of Huflanders' Medical Ethics" stipulates that "even if he is terminally ill and has no medicine to cure, you should keep him alive, do your duty and relieve the pain at that time. If you give up, it means inhumanity. " "Trying to prolong his life, even for a short time, is the proper embodiment of being a doctor." Hippocrates, the father of medicine, also made a similar statement: I will not give harmful drugs to others, and I will not give such guidance, even if someone asks. At one time, this concept of "extending life first" once dominated the medical field for a long time. We should see that this value goal was adapted to the underdeveloped living standard at that time. Being able to survive under such harsh living conditions has become the most basic and only goal of most people's lives. With the development of social economy, people's understanding of life is no longer limited to the living state of organisms, but focuses on more essential content. People's understanding of this has gone through three stages: 1. The theory that life is sacred. That is to say, the theory of prolonging life is supreme, which has been regarded as truth by many people so far. The theory of quality of life advocates that human beings should have a higher quality of life. When human society has resources and loopholes. "This view is obviously flawed. How to measure the quality of an organism? Is it based on its psychological quality or physical quality? Or take the social evaluation of them as the personal quality standard? It is difficult to grasp this point, so the theory of life value appeared. "The value of life is not equal to everyone. Measuring the value of life is based on two factors: the physical and intellectual quality of life itself and the significance of life to individuals and society. The former is the premise and foundation of life value judgment, which determines the intrinsic value of a life, while the latter is the purpose and destination of life value judgment, which determines the external value of life. Only when intrinsic value and extrinsic value are unified in a living body can life be meaningful. However, due to the low physical strength and intelligence of an incurable patient, the intrinsic value and external value of his life are in a state of extreme smile or even lack, and maintaining this life has little social value. It will only increase the burden on society, and it is in line with the theory of life value to end this low-quality life in a certain way. " From the theory of life quality to the theory of life value, there is no essential change like the theory of life sacredness to the theory of life quality. The theory of life value only concretizes abstract quality standards into internal and external value standards, but only this change is enough to reconstruct people's understanding of the concept of life. Then it has brought a huge impact to the traditional medical goals. In 1946, Seagris pointed out that "the main goal of medicine is to maintain the adjustment of individuals and environment, make them become useful members of society, or readjust them when they are divorced from society because of patients. In the struggle against diseases, doctors apply natural science methods every day, but in order to achieve a social goal. " ⑽ This new medical model, which focuses on the social welfare value of patients, directly lays the foundation for euthanasia. 1970, Dr. Sakili put forward a legislative proposal to the Florida legislature: "Anyone can execute a document by following the same procedure as the execution of a will stipulated by law. The document mentions his right to die with dignity, and his life should not be extended beyond meaningful existence. " What we mean by meaning here is what we mean by quality. However, if Mr. Sacchi were president, he would definitely be tougher than Powell. Note that he used the word "should not". That is, if a person is judged to be a vegetable. Then he should not live in this world, even in the form of a "thing". In fact, if he is brain dead, he won't be conscious, and I won't feel any pain. At this time, according to the implementation requirements of euthanasia, doctors can only euthanize their families with their consent. What if their families disagree? Knowing that he won't wake up, he still holds the hope that there is no existence. Even if it is already a thing in the eyes of outsiders, it can still bring comfort to the family. I think it's not bad. Therefore, the value of life can not be separated from the state of existence and the quality of life. We have never denied the existence of either side. The key is the question of who to give up and who to take when you can't have both. Since both of them may become the focus in different periods, the duty of doctors is to save lives, so it is necessary to change. Not that it is wrong, but that it is not comprehensive. The reason lies not only in the transfer of medical goals and values caused by the new medical model discussed above, but also in the relationship between doctors and patients. "Angel of White Medicine" is a reputation given to doctors by patients, but don't think that you are an angel sent by God. Have the right to have jurisdiction over patients, ignore patients' wishes, and make various behaviors to prolong patients' lives. No wonder Seiichi Morimura said, "This is a punishment for wearing a medical mask". I have to point out that many doctors in China don't have a correct attitude and don't understand the relationship between themselves and their patients. Anyone can see a doctor questioning this and that with a straight face in the hospital every day. I really don't understand what they are going to do. They should understand that when patients pay the fees, they should get satisfactory service. When a patient asks you to save his life, you go all out to save it. When a patient asks you to treat his injury, you treat him wholeheartedly. When the patient can't bear to decide euthanasia, you can help him relieve his pain according to his wishes. I think this is a more appropriate explanation.
There is no disease that can never be cured. This view has been discussed before, and it is difficult to grasp because of the vague boundary in time.
13. The criminal law protects everyone's right to life, and no one may infringe on others' right to life. The crime of intentional homicide in criminal law does not rule out euthanasia. All three sentences are correct. But it is wrong for some people to impose their causality on the illegality of euthanasia. First of all, China has never stipulated that euthanasia is a crime, and the so-called law has not explicitly stipulated that it is not a crime. How can it be said that euthanasia is a crime, and it is also an extremely bad crime of intentional homicide? Secondly, it is true that criminal law protects citizens' right to life, but this does not mean that criminal law can replace citizens to exercise their right to life. The decision-making power is always in the hands of citizens. What criminal law can do is to affirm this right of decision and show respect for it by punishing acts that violate life. Euthanasia does not involve the right to life, but the way of death. Whether it is related to criminal law remains to be discussed. (If euthanasia is not illegal, it naturally does not belong to the adjustment scope of criminal law), but what does it have to do with intentional homicide?
Supplementary point of view: Although some people admit passive euthanasia, they oppose active euthanasia. First, active euthanasia may be psychologically unacceptable. Secondly, on the surface, active euthanasia seems to be the direct cause of death. If doctors inject highly toxic drugs into critically ill patients, it is this injection that causes death, not cancer. For this, it seems that we can only overthrow it through simple analogy. Because for passive euthanasia, we can also say that his death was not cancer, but the doctor stopped treatment. It can be seen that there is no essential difference between positive euthanasia and negative euthanasia, but the means are different. "If death is the expected goal or purpose, then cautious inaction and cautious action are morally the same. Although there are direct euthanasia and indirect euthanasia in technology, it is the same thing in theory. " ⑾ As for the psychology mentioned earlier, it may be hard to accept. Although it is not within the scope of legal adjustment, it is believed that people will accept it after a period of contact and familiarity through the legal confirmation of active euthanasia. Therefore, as Sakil said: "As long as it is in the interests of patients, both positive euthanasia and negative euthanasia should be allowed." ⑿
First of all, I want to clarify three concepts. First, today's debate is whether euthanasia should be "legalized", so we should make clear the difference between "decriminalization" and "legalization". Secondly, whether euthanasia should be legalized should be discussed from two aspects of "necessity" and "feasibility". Thirdly, the subject of our discussion should be China. Otherwise, our debate will lose its practical significance and deviate from the direction.
Let's define legalization and decriminalization first.
Legalization refers to giving formal legal recognition or legal protection to acts that were considered illegal or criminal in the past through normal legislative procedures, which means a new legal arrangement, even a system innovation, and reflects the official's positive attitude towards something.
The connotation of decriminalization is rich, which can be divided into two categories: de facto decriminalization and legal decriminalization. In fact, decriminalization refers to the phenomenon that the criminal justice system reduces its response activities to specific behaviors under certain circumstances, although the formal provisions of the penalty system have not changed. Decriminalization in law means a formal change in the criminal law's evaluation of past acts interfered by criminal law.
Under the above conditions, we put forward the following opinions:
First of all, the legalization of euthanasia has its ethical contradictions. (that is, the question of necessity)
Secondly, the legalization of euthanasia is in contradiction with China's national conditions. (that is, the question of feasibility)
On the first point.
There are three main reasons why people support euthanasia: it is beneficial to relieve the suffering of terminally ill and dying patients; It is beneficial to reduce the unbearable physical and mental burden of patients' relatives; Conducive to the rational use of limited medical resources in society. But these three reasons are not in the same position. Respecting the individual's right to self-determination is the first priority in euthanasia. Without individual autonomy and self-determination, the other two reasons can hardly be used as the basis for the legalization of euthanasia.
So we mainly discuss the first question.
The first is the object of euthanasia. The object is the "dying person", that is, the patient who may be dying but not yet dead. It is precisely because this near-death state is very difficult to grasp, so it is difficult for doctors to draw conclusions easily and it is difficult to push these objects from life to death. As some senior clinicians have said, it is very difficult or dangerous to make an irreversible judgment on the patient's condition: don't give up the rescue easily in the rescue of critically ill patients. This is due to the complexity of life, which cannot be fully understood by "rich experience".
In addition, relieving pain is also worthy of scrutiny.
For those who ask for euthanasia, he asks to end his life ahead of time, not for autonomy or impatience, which must have its inherent or profound reasons. Once you can help them untie the knot in their hearts or ease the dilemma behind them, who will choose the way of early death at will?
The patient's pain is usually a mixture of body and mind. Who knows whether the person who asks for euthanasia is out of physical pain or has another hidden pain in his heart? Emanuel of Harvard Medical School once pointed out: A large number of studies show that most patients seeking euthanasia do not ask for euthanasia because of unbearable pain, but because of psychological factors-depression. After investigating cancer patients, he found that patients with pain are more likely to oppose the legalization of euthanasia. He also cited many other findings and concluded that depression, despair and anxiety were the main reasons why patients asked for euthanasia. The main reason for considering euthanasia is to relieve patients who suffer from extreme physical pain, but these patients are often not patients who ask for euthanasia.
The legalization of euthanasia is not to encourage them (especially those who are dying) to look at death positively and fight against the disease strongly, but to affirm their negative choice of early death. What kind of humanitarianism is there? Where is the spirit of law?
Secondly, there is a great contradiction between the legalization of euthanasia and China's national conditions.
One is the huge gap between the rich and the poor and the imperfect medical system.
Euthanasia in a broad sense has been popularized in China, especially in poor areas. Why? Because the economy is underdeveloped, people can't afford to cure the disease. People with cancer can only wait for death, even if they want to die early. This family has brought a heavy burden because of this patient. If euthanasia is legalized, people here will choose euthanasia voluntarily, so they will not choose to die because of unbearable pain, but more for economic reasons. At this time, the will changed.
Second, legal contradictions.
Euthanasia has its contradictions in jurisprudence. One reason is the contradiction of euthanasia in criminal law theory, that is, it is not a criminal act in essence, but it is a criminal act in identification means.
In addition, Article 45 of China's Constitution clearly stipulates the right to exist: "In case of old age, illness or disability, the people of China and citizens of China. Have the right to get material help from the state and society. The state develops social security, social relief and medical and health undertakings that citizens need to enjoy these rights. " According to this provision, the right to die is actually a deprivation of the right to exist. Therefore, the right of euthanasia at present is in contradiction with the spirit of the Constitution.
Third, the level of medical science and technology and research ability are limited, and it is difficult to determine the death standard and euthanasia judgment standard.
Fourthly, the legalization of euthanasia not only violates the concept of filial piety in China's traditional values, the concept of "saving one life is better than building a seven-level pagoda" in Buddhism, but also violates the revolutionary optimism in socialist values.
Five, euthanasia is easy to become a tool of "legal killing" and a means for relatives to make profits for themselves.
It is necessary to explain a phenomenon here: according to a survey published by the University of G? ttingen in Germany, the researchers of the University analyzed 7,000 euthanasia cases in the Netherlands. It was found that many of these euthanasia patients were not voluntary, but with the cooperation of doctors and their families, they proudly decided to euthanize them behind their doctors' backs. The proportion of "involuntary euthanasia" is as high as 4L%. What's more noteworthy is that among these 4 1% patients, LL% are still conscious and fully capable of making their own choices before they die. This practice leads some elderly patients to distrust the doctors who treat them, and even their families, fearing that they will be euthanized one day. In order to escape this possibility, the elderly and patients began to "escape" to neighboring countries. According to the survey, the phenomenon of Dutch elderly emigrating abroad began in the second half of 2002, and in the following months, this phenomenon of "escape" continued to increase.
Sixth, it is easy to cause medical slack and humanitarian decline.
For example, when family members suggest that patients "should" leave, doctors can also use their professional authority to influence patients' views on their future. The negative emotions produced by patients are not conducive to the treatment of diseases, nor to the moral concept that "saving lives is the first duty of doctors", nor to the development of medicine.
China's "Legislation Law" stipulates that legislation should proceed from reality and scientifically and reasonably stipulate the rights and obligations of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, as well as the rights and responsibilities of state organs. To sum up, the legalization of euthanasia is not in line with China's national conditions, so it is not suitable for legislation.
To sum up, euthanasia has profound contradictions in ethics and great contradictions in practice with China's national conditions, so euthanasia should not be legalized.