978-744-TAPS (8277) info@aperformingartsacademy.com
Select Page

Euthanasia is based on the desire to die, a suicidal desire, and is often – perhaps almost always – associated with depression that causes suicidal thoughts. The solution is not to kill the patient – even if he asks for it – but to treat depression. Many studies show that when it comes to depression among those who request euthanasia in countries where it is legal, the vast majority change their minds and stop asking questions about it. Provided that he was never killed, because as we see, there is no obligation for a psychiatrist to investigate the case. It is of the utmost importance because, depending on the meaning given to the term euthanasia, its practice may appear to people as an inhuman crime or as an act of merciful solidarity. These huge differences are often due to different ways of understanding the meaning of the word, that is, the reality one wants to describe. Obviously not. The criminal sanction is a last guarantee against murderous attitudes, but it is not the only effective measure in the real field where euthanasia is avoided: so important or perhaps more and certainly before the penal norm is the attitude of individuals and social groups towards the patient, for the elderly, for the disabled. Proponents of the ethical and legal legality of euthanasia often confuse the intimate moral disposition of individuals with the laws or society that should be acceptable; And they also confuse circumstances that can mitigate and even eliminate liability with what the general rule must provide. – Redirect of ReL articles with arguments against euthanasia In recent years, however, some laws have violated the traditional principle of absolute protection of the right to life by authorizing or not the attempt on the lives of unborn persons conceived by abortion, or the destruction of human embryos created in laboratories. Such laws on abortion and artificial reproductive technologies have opened a breach in the coherent line of legal protection of human life, which some now want to expand further by allowing euthanasia. c) The experience of the Netherlands, where a permissive mentality of euthanasia is already being created, is that in parallel a “moral coercion” is created, which leads terminals or “useless” to feel compelled to request euthanasia. A group of adults with significant disabilities recently told the Dutch parliament: “We feel threatened.

We are aware that we are making a very important effort for the community. Many people think we are useless. We often realize that we are tempted to convince ourselves that we wish for death. We find it dangerous and frightening to think that new medical laws can include euthanasia. “To complement these strategies, polls are being promoted to confirm that the majority of citizens, doctors or cancer patients are in favour of euthanasia. The common experience of euthanasia is that these surveys are unreliable given the confusing terminology and emotional components of the subject: depending on how the questions are asked and the answers interpreted, the results can be interpreted in any way. Recently, we saw an exemplary case in Spain in this regard: the headlines announced that, according to a survey, the majority of doctors in Barcelona were in favour of euthanasia. By analyzing the real content of such an investigation, it turns out that these doctors are against therapeutic tenacity and against euthanasia, that is, they think the same thing that this document expresses, but their opinion has been manipulated in the service of an idea they do not share. For years, the Netherlands has had a sad experience of the practical legality of euthanasia – a unique case in the world. Richard Fenigsen, a Dutch cardiologist, describes this reality: “Dutch general practitioners practice voluntary active euthanasia on about 5,000 patients per year. The higher number of 10,000 is likely to include hospitalized patients. However, figures in the range of 18,000 to 20,000 cases per year have been cited.

(…) 81% of Dutch general practitioners have been euthanised at some point in their career; 28% euthanize two patients per year and 14% euthanize three to five patients per year. (…) – Social initiatives are emerging to care for the terminally ill in a human climate, who respect the person and his pain and are technically prepared to face death with dignity and to feel like a person, as is the case with the British “hospices” led by Dr. Cicely Saunders, a book that does more to prevent euthanasia than a million speeches; – since many denominations, especially those with Christian roots – not only the Catholic Church, of course – react violently to attempts to legalise euthanasia on the basis of its moral gravity, the misconception is that euthanasia is a purely religious and intimate matter of mere individual conscience and that, therefore, as long as euthanasia is not compulsory, it must be accepted in a pluralistic society. There are two ethical principles that play a role in the euthanasia debate and that are opposed: autonomy and charity. The principle of autonomy refers to the right of the person to decide about his body, how and when he dies.