Rewriting Possibility: 89%
This research provides background information about different types of euthanasia, the arguments in favor of the legalization and the arguments in favor of the ban on legalization. The background information was gathered from reliable academic sources. The research essay was based on an online survey and an expert interview to test the hypothesis. 5% of respondents said that the legalization of euthanasia is the right decision and voted for its legalization, which confirms the chosen hypothesis.
The results of the research may not be completely reliable, because the study has several biases. The main deviation is the number of respondents, which is not enough to produce reliable results. In addition, the study provides recommendations for further research on the legalization of euthanasia, as well as recommendations for the governments on this issue. 3. Literature review The American Medical Dictionary (2007) gives a definition of euthanasia as ‘a rumination of human life in order to get rid of their pain and suffering in terminal illness. Euthanasia is also defined as an intentional act or omission Of health care, which is carried out in accordance with a clearly and unambiguously expressed request of the informed patient or his legal representative to end the physical and psychological suffering of patients undergoing medical priority in life-threatening condition, which occurs as a result of his death (Boyd, 2005). The question of the legalization of the physical assisted suicide (PAS) and active euthanasia (AY) is one of the controversial issues.
Magnusson (2003) argues that the key point of the debate lies in how to regulate the rules, which can make this process clear and understandable for society. According to Magnusson (2003), the problem of PAS and AY caused much controversy among physicians, lawyers, sociologists and psychologists. Analyzing the situation, Schemes (2001) states that now the actual question is not about allowing or not to allowing doctors to use euthanasia, but it is about when and under what conditions it should be used and how to organize the control f the legality of its implementation.
Magnusson (2003) shows the differences between active and passive euthanasia and voluntary and involuntary. According to him, passive euthanasia is expressed the fact that the provision to stop life-prolonging medical treatment is accelerates the natural death. Also, passive euthanasia can be considered as the patient’s right to refuse treatment, surgery, taking drugs. An active euthanasia, by Magnusson, means the introduction of dying of any drug or other means and other actions that lead to the quick and painless death (Magnusson, 2003).
Bothered (201 1) summarized the main arguments in favor of euthanasia and states that the most important one is ‘life is good only when the overall enjoyment prevail over suffering, positive emotions – on the negative’. He says that this is the most compelling evidence, especially when the person is suffering unbearable pain and the reluctance of people to be painful for him has been confirmed unequivocally expressed will. However, the opponent of euthanasia, Davies (2002), claims one main argument against of AY and PAS. He says that our life is good and it is good even when it becomes primarily a anoint souse suffering.
Reintroduce (1997), who is also in favor of legalize the AY, argues that maintaining life on the stages of dying, carried out with the help of advanced technology, is too expensive. He says that the funds that are spent on maintenance of life in hopeless situations, would be enough to treat dozens, hundreds of people who respond to treatment. Moreover, Davies (2002) says the other powerful argument against of AY, which is that it will be difficult to imagine that students in medical universities will be trained on how to end the life of their’ own patients.
According to Boyd (2005), this problem is compounded by the day, as this question is not fully understood and the society is not ready to understand and accept of euthanasia and assisted suicide. 4. Background People’s right to life and health are a priority and the most important among all the other rights guaranteed by the laws of all civilized countries. Therefore that is not surprising that the majority of people in a society quite sincerely believe that a doctor has rescued a dying patient’s rights in all cases because Of their professional duties and the very purpose Of medicine.
He also argues hat it is not being considered a reasonable and humane pursuit when a doctor tries to return a patient whose disease has reached the final stage to life (Geol., 2008) states that there are situations where actions are contrary to a doctor’s sworn oaths and in these situations there is the question about the euthanasia and assisted suicide. 4. 1 Distinguish between active and passive euthanasia Passive euthanasia ceases to provide medical care and life-supporting treatment, which accelerates natural death.
But more often, when people talk about euthanasia – they have active euthanasia in mind, which is defined as n injection of dying drugs that entails a quick and painless death. According to Magnusson (2003), there are three forms of active euthanasia. The first one is ‘mercy killing’ which occurs in cases where relatives and/or doctors are seeing patients in great suffering and not being able to fix them. They spray or inject them with an overdose of painkillers, which comes as a result of a quick and painless death.
Questions of the consent of a patient in cases like this are not brought because patients are unable to express their will The second form Of active euthanasia – assisted-suicide is when a doctor only helps patients commit suicide. The third form of the active euthanasia is euthanasia without the help of a doctor which is when a patient makes use of a device which leads to a quick and painless death, usually carried with their own hands. 4. Arguments for and against for the euthanasia and assisted suicide The arguments in favor of euthanasia are very diverse, but in a closer study are not as numerous.
Rather, each new argument is a variation on a theme already available in the arsenal of the defenders of the euthanasia argument. Most of the scientists of the world have come to the conclusion that euthanasia is not contrary to our common humanity, but the final decision should belong to the patient (Bothered, 2011 He argues that the decision on the termination of life and treatment should be based on a conscious will of terminally ill people and that a painless death is a charity, it is good and such conduct cannot be qualified as murder.
Boyd (2005) states that maintenance of life in the stages of dying, which is carried out with the help of advanced technology is too expensive. He argues that the funds that are spent on maintenance of life in hopeless situations would be sufficient to treat a large umber of people who can be treated. The opponents point out that legalizing euthanasia would paralyze any scientific progress (Geol., 2008). In this case, scientists, biologists and geneticists would have no need to invent new means of combating AIDS, cancer and other life-threatening human diseases.
According to him, the legalization Of euthanasia could potentially lead to doctors interrupting suffering patient by lethal injection or disconnecting the device artificially keeping them alive. Also, euthanasia involves the forcible imposition on the role of a doctor as actually an accomplice of suicide which may conflict with his psychological characteristics. In addition, the factor of the incurable disease, which defines such a radical choice as euthanasia, is a very relative term in place at the present time constant discoveries and achievements in medicine (Geol., 2008).
The problem of euthanasia is intentionally causing the death of a doctor to a patient, out of compassion or as a request of a dying man or his relatives. The possibility and feasibility of intentional death of a terminally ill patient to end their suffering has never been straightforward, With opinions on this subject metrically opposite. 5. Methodology The survey was conducted via the Internet using a website that specializes in organizing and conducting online surveys ‘Surveying/.
For two weeks, a total of 29 respondents took part in the survey which was split into ten multiple choice questions on the legalization of euthanasia. The second part of the survey is an interview with a professor of Military Medical Academy in Saint-Petersburg. The professor was asked 5 questions via Seep about the legalization of euthanasia and the possible effect which it could has. 6. Results 6. 1 Online survey 0 people were involved in the online survey, 22 (73,3 %) were female. The majority of respondents 63. 3% were aged between 26 and 35 years old and 33,3 % of the respondents were aged between 18 and 25 years.
In the current study involved 83,3 % of people are not living in the ELK. The majority of respondents gave a precise definition of euthanasia (80%) and only 4 respondents chose the wrong definition. 53,3 % of respondents supported the legalization of euthanasia and the same percentage of respondents agree that this is the right solution. 83,3 % believe that a decision to terminate life ND using euthanasia should be taken by the person who is suffering from pain or has poor physical condition, instead to be taken by their relatives or doctor. See more information Of the questionnaire in Appendix 1) 6. 2 Expert interview Nikolas Assimilation, professor of Medical Academy believes that the legalization of euthanasia should be considered very carefully and in detail, he also says that there are significant numbers of side effects in the legalization of euthanasia. According to him, the decision of using euthanasia should be taken by a patient who is suffering from pain, but there are many tuitions in which this decision may also be taken by his relatives.
The professor argues that the law on the legalization of euthanasia must include serious constraints under which the use of euthanasia is not possible. In his opinion, the most serious problem is a medical duty to help sick patients to get better, but when the euthanasia will be legalized they will have to help people to die, which is contrary to their moral standards. According to the expert, euthanasia there unofficially – as a rule, it’s either from the patient’s refusal of treatment or unauthorized disabling medical life support system, or allure to provide appropriate treatment.
In addition, he states that he does not believe that euthanasia can be kept under control in the event of legalization. (For more information see the Appendix 2) 7. Analysis and Conclusion The aim of the research was to prove that majority of people support the legalization of euthanasia. The study confirmed the hypothesis. Using the results obtained above figures show a dangerous tendency to increase the number of people who are loyal to the use of euthanasia. It is also obvious that people are willing to take responsibility for euthanasia in cases they think hey will need it.
In addition to the above, the online survey shows that the majority of respondents believe legalizing euthanasia is a right decision, because they suggest that people must not only have a choice how to live, but also how to die. The analysis of the interview shows the fact that the specialist in medical field also believes that the issue of legalization is significantly important. However, respondents and expert believe that the legalization of euthanasia is a complex and controversial question, which is requires careful consideration. On the other hand, the survey has a number of biases. The reason for this conclusion is quantity of survey.
The online questionnaire was conducted among a small number of respondents. Furthermore, the interview was also conducted with only one specialist in the same authority. For reliable results surveys should be realized with a larger number of respondents and more than one expert in different fields related to this topic namely; medicine, law, psychology and sociology. The other main bias is quality Of research, which had affected factors of the surveys results. First of all, the survey and interview were conducted via the Internet, rather than through personal intact, which also has an effect on the final result.
Secondly, the survey was only conducted over two weeks and for a complete picture of people’s opinions on the legalization of euthanasia more time is needed. 8. Recommendations The research requires a number of requires recommendations for future works. The main recommendation for more reliable results is conducting a survey and interviews with experts using a much larger number of respondents. As the issue of legalization of euthanasia is ambiguous and intense discussion in communities, national governments should pay attention to this problem.
The results of research studies have confirmed the hypothesis put forward and showed that the majority of people support the legalization of euthanasia and, in this case, highly recommended for a referendum on the legalization of euthanasia. People who have an impact in medical establishment and have an authority there, should be more careful with medical’ officials and watch doctors work closely. On the other hand, individuals who need to use the euthanasia can find this in some countries around the world.