Free things you can do now in the face of euthanasia: this will happen in Congress, perhaps in the coming months. But also in offices, or group discussions or meetings of friends. The debate on euthanasia will not only be pervasive, but also complex and profound. Would it be different if what is being discussed has to do with the decision about his own death? Euthanasia in its various classes and protocols has only been legalized in a few countries, such as Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Both pro-euthanasia and anti-euthanasia say they are against extreme suffering and all declare themselves “compassionate”. Everyone agrees to fight suffering. But a euthanasia law is about killing people (or helping them commit suicide themselves in assisted suicide). Does this euthanasia law really protect the weak and prevent them from being injured and killed? You must also have compassion for them, from which almost no one protects themselves. This is an issue that affects society as a whole. You need to look not only at the effect in a year or two, but also the long-term effect against a variety of people at risk.
9. In a country where older people are already abused, who will protect them in the event of legal euthanasia? The @Cermi_Estatal asks the Senate to follow the criteria of the #ONU so that the #regulación of people #eutanasia with #discapacidad t.co/xeD3uXyJj5 A person, without the need for a law allowing euthanasia, can commit suicide without major complications. But the law will allow others to decide the lives of others. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are two variants of medical assistance in dying. In the first, the doctor is the one who ends the life of the patient, who prefers to die than to live with the suffering – which has no relief – caused by his illness – which has no cure; In the second case, the doctor`s help is limited to providing the patient with the means to do so, i.e. the one who causes his death (Álvarez, 2018). In fact, the Spanish Committee of Representatives of Persons with Disabilities (CERMI) appealed to the Supreme Court to appeal the law, as it considers it discriminatory because it allows euthanasia for people who “suffer” from an “impossible condition”. 12. Euthanasia makes suicide more contagious and more difficult to overcome Lisnofsky suggests a “strong opposition” to the legalisation of euthanasia. First of all, sectors of the economy: “There is a very large activity for laboratories and the pharmaceutical industry. Many resources are displaced in terms of end-of-life,” he says.
And also religious areas. 5. Euthanasia is not a consequence of freedom, but its sacrifice. 10. The legalization of euthanasia trivializes it and does not avoid crossing borders A law or society with euthanasia believes that death can be the solution to the problems and burdens of life. This is a danger for those who suffer from suicidal thoughts, as it “normalizes” this practice. These are two approaches based on radically opposed philosophies. The legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide results from the demand for autonomy.
Palliative care combines the ethics of autonomy with the ethics of vulnerability and collective solidarity. Palliative care prevents and relieves suffering, while euthanasia aims to intentionally accelerate death. Palliative care is a treatment, euthanasia is a deadly act. “The legalization of euthanasia would lead to a change in the `hegemonic medical paradigm` and in `doctor-patient` power relations. The doctor would cease to be the protagonist, but a companion. The protagonist is the one who suffers and must be the one who has the floor,” Lisnofsky said. There are dominant arguments among supporters and opponents of euthanasia. Those who are convinced of the necessity of this practice argue that the patient should be allowed to put an end to unnecessary and degrading suffering that does not allow him to live a dignified life in order to avoid being exposed to therapeutic bitterness resulting from the progress of medical science and the desire of doctors, Keep alive those who have no hope of recovery (Herrera, n.d.). Silberberg believes in these cases that medicine and the environment must double the stake: “If we perceive that life has no meaning, perhaps because it is experiencing a particularly painful situation, then it is an opportunity to give the patient the care he needs through solidarity and human fraternity.” The legalization of euthanasia means introducing the violation of the prohibition of killing into the heart of society. Whether it`s just for the basic precautionary principle, a “you will kill sometimes” or “under certain conditions” should be rejected. Our civilization has progressed by removing exceptions to the prohibition of killing (revenge, mourning, death penalty).
Legalizing euthanasia would mean taking a step back. The direct euthanasia that we saw in the previous device, in turn, can be divided into two types, depending on the type of medical procedure used to cause the patient`s death. We can therefore distinguish: Lafferriere takes the opposite position. The narrative that maintains the absolute primacy of personal autonomy is a liberal individualistic view, it is a devotion as a society to suffering and presupposes the establishment of the most radical individualism. Just as we advise against suicide, the legalization of euthanasia leaves everyone to their own means and decisions. Moreover, since life is a good, it cannot be the object of the law, for there can be no action aimed at the deprivation of a good. Euthanasia kills: the E-Cristians` argument about euthanasia The conditions required to perform euthanasia can be regulated and discussed by the legislators of each country to align them with the country`s local values and traditions. Supporters of the bill, however, say the process is designed to prevent current circumstances, such as a depressive image, from leading to euthanasia. The patient`s request is followed by the examination of another doctor (not the family doctor), and then his proposal is analyzed by a bioethics commission, including experts in law, medicine and psychology. The legalization of euthanasia means introducing the violation of the prohibition of killing at the heart of society If the criterion of the “Estates General of Bioethics” prevailing in the citizen consultation is accepted, the bill that will be submitted to Parliament by the French government will not mention the end of life.
regulated by the Claeys-Leonetti law of 2016. However, in the face of pressure from euthanasia advocates and the slowness with which the state is reacting to the improvement and universalization of palliative care, more than 175 associations specializing in palliative care have signed a manifesto summarizing their position in favor of caring for people in the last phase of life. 9. Making a mistake in a request for euthanasia would be an irreparable medical error Trailer of goya`s new documentary Producciones on “Dying in Peace”, the good, ethical and humane alternative to euthanasia As we told in an April note, the deputy of Cordoba, Gabriela Estévez, has been working on a bill that aims to legalize euthanasia and is currently under consideration. There are two other drawings in the same stadium: one by Brenda Austin, also a national deputy for Cordoba, and the other by the national senator for Mendoza Julio Cobos. Lisnofsky adds: “The great hypocrisy of all this is that terminal sedation is allowed: a very high dose of substances in which the patient does not wake up and does not experience what the body endures. And this is euthanasia, but in disguise. Euthanasia is based on the desire to die, a desire to die, 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. Numerous studies show that when it comes to depression on the part of those who request euthanasia in countries where it is legal, the vast majority change their mind and stop asking for it. provided that he has never been killed before, because as we can see, there is no obligation for a psychiatrist to investigate the case. It is not clear if he will win.
In May 2018, the Portuguese parliament voted against euthanasia: even the Communists voted against it. Euthanasia was also rejected by the Finnish parliament in the summer of 2018. The World Medical Association reiterated in 2019 that it was “unethical” and “must be condemned by the medical profession.” In recent years of social debate, advocates of life have used different arguments: some, against all kinds of euthanasia or assisted suicide; others against the concrete proposal, which has been put to a referendum, and its lack of controls (which are essentially impossible). In illegal euthanasia, this suicidal pressure simply does not exist or is so crude that it is immediately recognized and punished.