Research Paper
Final
12/11/2011
Euthanasia: “The Right to Die”
The essential right that can assist today to every human being is life, but when turns out to be affected by a few deplorable conditions of health, which they take the one who endures them to meet in a situation in which there turns out to be imprisoned in an intensive care unit, of which it is not known if it will go out, where its existence is in the tightrope, where it can exist an irreversible exit, where the existence will depend in the future of extraordinary means, connected to machines like the artificial respirator, it is necessary to ask if the life is looking after or prolonging the agony that can take us to the death. Below I will discuss the definition of Euthanasia, some aspects to take for a possible approval, and finally i will discuss some of the points in favor and against euthanasia.
For all practical purposes i will take as a definition of euthanasia the following: a patient's right to decide on the form and the time of his death., this within a short definition, but you are looking for the sole purpose the rid a person of their intense suffering, a merciless agony they endure as a result of a serious illness and incurable (for example, some types of cancer, or AIDS). The above mentioned illness or the condition must have been diagnosed sufficiently, so that its irreversibility characteristic, it is such, that determines the death as something inevitable. Within the same definition, the concept of patient, such as the human being who suffers from something, it may be a physical suffering. Without reference to the moral suffering or psychological exclusively, although by this, it is not discarded that physical suffering you might cause a suffering such as those set forth above. i think that euthanasia if it can be a right, but under certain conditions, although as we shall see throughout this work, it has its views in favor of and against, in addition to the moral implications and legal that we shall try to glimpse in this essay. Before beginning to study in depth the topic that occupies us, let's look at the positions of different currents of the thought on this matter: For the requirements, the obligation for divine question of respecting the life in any circumstance, exists a strict prohibition sustained in natural laws of having for proper account of the life. Juan Pablo II, in his encyclical 'The Gospel of the Life' defines the Euthanasia like: “Taking possession of the death, trying to get it in an early way and making end like the 'sweetly' to the proper life or to that of other”. characterized by an attitude of excessive preoccupation, which goes against the elderly and the weakest, characterized as somewhat onerous and unbearable, isolated by the family and in society, whereby a nonworking life no longer has any value. And it defines again the Euthanasia as a 'action or an omission that for its nature and in the intention the death causes, in order to eliminate any pain 'placed in the intention and the secondhand methods'. In terms of a utilitarian theory of rights, the Euthanasia shows us how a more practical option in the case that we present a life marked by suffering and without possibilities for happiness. From this perspective, euthanasia is good given the pains that you removed who is suffering, has reduced the damage to society and ends with a 'burden' for the family. In the Utopia of Tomas Moro, there appears the medical and moral concept of the Euthanasia: “When atrocious sufferings are added to this incurable evil, the magistrates and priests, they present the patient to themselves to exhort him try to make him see that it is already deprived of the goods and vital functions... and since the life is a pure anguish, he(she) must not hesitate to accept the death, must not hesitate to be liberated himself or allowing others to liberate... this to him is, the death will not separate him of the sweetness of life but of the torture and a work is realized... pious and saint... this type of death is considered to be something honorable” Here one sees: an attention polished to the patients, an intolerable illness, which legitimizes the voluntary death and the euthanasia in utopia, bears in mind the rights of the person: responsibility, freedom, the priests are interpreters of the divinity. Hume, there criticizes the position eminently moralist of the suicide and of step the euthanasia like: “Our horror to the death is so big that when this one appears under any other form different from the one that a man had strengthened in reconciliation with its imagination, he/she acquires new frightening aspects and turns out to be overwhelming for its little forces. And when the threats of superstition are added to this natural shyness, it is not strange that achieve deprive men of all power over their lives' and goes against a determinism to say that if the dispose of human life outside something reserved exclusively to the almighty, and would be a infringement of the divine law that the men had their own lives, the criminal would be that a man will act to preserve life, as to decide destroy it." Nevertheless, I believe that it is necessary to recognize something after the human being, this right after which there should be recognized the possibility of having its own life in special situations simply for the dignity that this one can have, admit after a human being the possibility of defining that to do with its life is to respect the humanity of other (its humanity), it is the respect of the freedom and of the proper life, and this helps us to define what is a worthy life, it is possible to argue from this point of view, of the human dignity(rank), the demand of restoring the euthanasia (under certain conditions) as a struggle for the recognition of the right to the worthy death, understanding for that unworthy death that it prolongs the life for artificial means, in which the life escapes slowly and a fidelity happens(exists) purely to the physical body.
SOME ASPECTS TO BEAR IN MIND FOR ITS POSSIBLE APPROVAL Before clear points, or conclusions, with regard to the topic, what I have is an innumerable list of aspects without solving that, I believe, they must be born in mind, although of for himself, the given definition more behind, it might approve or to regulate this right. Although of for himself, in a country like ours, cause might be more of damages that of benefits, since there are not given the conditions of conscience, of legislation, and of covering necessary so that it is possible to bear somehow in mind in this one country. 1. The testament in Life (or vital testament): A vital testament is a document in which the interested party expresses its will on the medical attentions that wants to receive case to endure an irreversible or terminal illness that has taken him to the condition that prevents him from expressing itself for itself. It can realize its own personalized vital testament, with the indications and reasonings that the person considers to be pertinent. Of this type of documents very varied versions exist, foundations exist in many countries that advise any person on this aspect, in accordance with the current laws in every country. The arguments that might be in favor of it can be: The life expectancy average has increased enormously in the most prosperous countries. And still,in less prosperous countries, since ours) It benefits us while we enjoy a health good condition. But the medical advances, which have supposed a big progress for the health, can serve also to lengthen the process of the death. Theoretically, our assent is needed so that a treatment administers us, but most of the accepted people automatically what the doctor gives him. There is the one who spends months, even years, with a quality of life so poor that he/she goes so far as to want to die violently. What most of the people wish In all those places in which surveys have been realized, most of the people think that it would be necessary to allow the doctors to be able to help to die to an incurable patient if the patient requests it (In Colombia, The Law 23 of 1981 Dcto. 3380/81 it dictates some norms on the subject of medical ethics related to this aspect). In most of the countries in which a doctor carries out this help he/she can be accused of murder, in Colombia, is called a murder by piety and has jail from 6 months until three years. (Law 2241 art. 3261. Cdgo. Colombian penalty). 2. To bear in mind, the right at the free disposal of the body, as recognizes the customary law and to recognize, likewise, the possibility of the autonomy on its life after the human being. 3. Must they be born in mind or the same beginning be applied to a patient mentally qualified that to affected other of cerebral death, in the persistent vegetative condition, or in been seriously ill and irreversible of dementia? This why might it fall down across this in a 'social euthanasia' where the disposable ones can be eliminated very gently, without moral condemnations and without knowing somehow its most elementary rights. 4. After the agony of a person extends uselessly, one puts the family in situations that might be called inhuman, the costs can stand out, in the country, of having a person in intensive care unit, which easily promote to $1.500.000.oo newspapers, costs that hardly families of scarce resources(resorts) can support, (that between others, it is 60 % of the Colombian population, according to optimistic information) these expenses, they meet, in general, to the fret on the familiar(family) economy, they are not difficult to find situations in which the family stays in the ruin for destining all the available resources(resorts) in the attention of the one who irremediably was going to die. Definitely, in this country falling ill is a costly luxury. 5. If one legislates on the euthanasia (thing not easy to achieve), this one legislation must be it sufficiently wide and clear so that the possibility fits of that every case (for example that of the person who endures an incurable, painful and irreversible illness; or that of the quadriplegic shown to the one who is already not important to live) presents its own and peculiar difficulties. On the other hand, the condition, must encourage the individuals so that they take decisions with regard to its future for themselves and of the best way that they could.
SOME OF THE POINTS IN FAVOR AND AGAINST EUTHANASIA They are located throughout the argumentation presented certain points in favor and against the euthanasia, mention may be made between the points against euthanasia the following : 1. Could increase the number of homicides involving mask of euthanasia, for the sole purpose of collecting juicy inheritances 2. It could be applied euthanasia would only to take the juicy business of trafficking in organs, which shows that could have economic and political interests after their adoption. 3. Could decrease the resources allocated to the cure of disease, since it could leave more economic to die with people and this is reduced by the same token, the research effort in medicine. 4. You can lose the hope of living, if you like old people are neglected, isolated in nursing homes, such as sick can be eliminated simply. 5. Civic duty to stay alive
Some of the points in favor of euthanasia will be: 1. I have a right to dispose of my own life, and i can demand autonomy as an integral part of human dignity and expression of this. 2. A life under certain conditions it is unworthy, the image that project before their relatives or even in the other, can be seen as humiliating and shameful. 3. To accept a form of existence in very limited circumstances ? Sacrificing , in a way, to relatives and friends ? 4. As well as has a right to live with dignity, why do we not have a right to die with dignity?

5. There should be no attempt prolong life when it is not be able to live, making the patient not as a human being, but a clinical case interesting (as is the case in the university hospitals currently). 6. Could be institutionalized some rights not only of the terminal patient, but the family itself. | | As we see, the sea of questions that drags us still is big, nevertheless, a certain conscience exists already in our time so that it is accepted somehow, the values have been transforming little by little and it is already going over, to that someday, not very distant, approves the right to a just death, in the terms here raised. The individuals are taking seriously its role in this historical moment and begin to wonder on transcendental aspects in the existence of the being. Nevertheless, the risks that this one individual is absorbed and manipulated by the capitalist system are latent, since this one can manipulate it to turn it disposable and up to productive in a given moment.There are still many indeterminate aspects surrounding euthanasia, it is worth mentioning some as human dignity and autonomy, failure to take the human being from a point of view eminently biological, the quality of life and freedom of choice and we must not forget the ambiguity that can be accessed with your eventual legalization.

However, the discussion remains open ...Citations * DWORKIN, Ronald: DOMAIN OF LIFE .. Edit. Ariel Barcelona 1984 Pgs. 293 – 303 * Farrel Martin, Diego : UTILITARIANISM, ethics and politics . Edit. Abeledo-Perrot. Buenos Aires. Argentina. 1985 * Foundation Pro right to die with dignity summary of the forum of the advisers to die with dignity, Colombia. 1992 * Larue. Gerald A: PLAYING GOD. Euthanasia – Religious Aspects. * JOHN PAUL II: Encyclical: “THE GOSPEL OF LIFE”. Ed Pauline Pgs 119 - 157 * Yadira Burciaga – Register Nurse at Sierra Providence in El Paso, Texas. |

|