Concetti Chiave
- Euthanasia is a controversial topic, dividing public opinion on whether it should be allowed for terminally ill patients.
- There is debate over whether individuals, their relatives, or doctors should have the right to decide on euthanasia to end suffering.
- Some countries like Belgium and the Netherlands have proposed laws permitting euthanasia, though with certain restrictions.
- The ethical dilemma revolves around balancing the right to freedom and life with the desire to relieve unbearable pain.
- Voluntary passive euthanasia is seen as lawful and involves withdrawing life support when it only prolongs suffering.
Euthanasia also known as "sweet death" is a topic that splits sharply in public opinion for and against.
They are here to decide if people seriously ill, for which there is no hope of healing (at least based on the knowledge of Medicine), they can decide (themselves, their relatives or even doctors) physical suppression, to avoid further pain, through the administration of appropriate drugs or lethal bites.
Who has the unfortunate experience happened to witness the agony of a dying person, perhaps in coma and kept alive only by machinery, suffering and passing difficult times beyond our imagination, certainly came up with a drastic solution, which could put an end to those pains.
But, what do you think of those cases which have occurred, not explainable through healing science, people deemed incurable by doctors?
We know that in Belgium and the Netherlands this have been proposed, even at the level of the European Parliament, laws permitting euthanasia, while retaining the ban at the right.
Now I wonder: can the State liberalize the suicide from its mind?
The principle of freedom is undoubtedly in our basic law, but it is permissible to allow a man to suppress himself in order to ease his pain?
What is the meaning of pain? Perhaps here the problem.
However, I do not think it is either fair to impose by law the insistence to the bitter end of therapy (so-called life-prolonging measures) or forcing someone to endure without ending an unnecessary pain.
Therefore, as well as the code of medical ethics affirms, I think it is fair that the patient (or the physician) perform direct treatments to impair mental and physical integrity and to shorten life or cause death, but instead is understandable, and therefore lawful, the so-called voluntary passive euthanasia, i.e. the suspension or exclusion of a life support treatment when this treatment cannot help but put off a slow and painful death.
Domande da interrogazione
- Qual é a principal controvérsia em torno da eutanásia?
- Quais países mencionados no texto têm leis que permitem a eutanásia?
- O que o texto sugere sobre a relação entre dor e a prática da eutanásia?
A principal controvérsia em torno da eutanásia é se é aceitável permitir que uma pessoa gravemente doente, sem esperança de cura, opte por terminar sua vida para evitar mais sofrimento, e se isso deve ser uma decisão pessoal, familiar ou médica.
O texto menciona que a Bélgica e os Países Baixos têm leis que permitem a eutanásia, e que isso foi proposto até mesmo no nível do Parlamento Europeu.
O texto sugere que a dor é inerente à natureza humana e que, embora os médicos devam aliviar a dor, a eutanásia como meio de eliminar a dor é questionável. A sociedade moderna tende a evitar a dor em vez de enfrentá-la, o que levanta questões sobre a legitimidade da eutanásia como solução.
Accedi a tutti gli appunti
Tutor AI: studia meglio e in meno tempo
