Existential controversy over euthanasia

“What do you want me to swear to?” he asked, very animated, untied.

“Well, at least by your life,” answered the procurator, “the time is right to swear by it, since it hangs by a thread, know that!”

“Don’t you think you hung her up, hegemon?” asked the prisoner, “if that is so, you are very mistaken.

Pilate started and answered through clenched teeth:

— I can cut this hair.

“And in this you are mistaken,” the prisoner objected, smiling brightly and shielding himself from the sun with his hand, “accept that only the one who hung it up can probably cut the hair?”

(M. A. Bulgakov. “The Master and Margarita”)

All major world religions have a negative attitude towards euthanasia. There is an understandable logic in this: if a higher power or the law of karma determines a person’s life, then unauthorized escape from problems is a violation of the rules. But in today’s secular society, opinions are divided. In some countries, a law on euthanasia has been passed – at the legislative level, the right to die is recognized and the necessary conditions are stipulated.

“We all know about the inevitability of death, but we are used to imagining it in an uncertain future,” writes York University psychology professor Robert Muller. “People suffering from incurable diseases face a harsh reality: death is inevitable. Cancer is the most common deadly disease, and in 2016 there will be an estimated 1,5 million new cases of the disease, which will kill nearly 600 people.

Over the past decade, some European countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands have legalized euthanasia. In June 2016, Canada passed Bill C-14, allowing people with terminal illnesses to choose a painless death instead of a painful death. According to Health Canada, there have been 2149 medically assisted voluntary deaths since the passage of the bill, and 63% of those are cancer patients.”

In states and states where euthanasia is allowed, people who suffer from incurable diseases, have undergone the necessary consultations with doctors (including psychiatrists) and have repeatedly confirmed their intention are entitled to it. At the same time, indications for euthanasia in different countries may vary.

The most liberal were the legislators of Belgium, where about 2000 people every year voluntarily die with the help of doctors. It is not necessary to suffer from the terminal stage of the disease. “Incurable diseases have become an argument for euthanasia advocates, but the Belgian approach is even more liberal,” says the documentary Allow Me to Die (SBS Dateline). Among the reasons for appeals are not only physical pain, but also mental suffering.

Many questions may arise here – for example, why such a radical exit is preferable to a long and possibly expensive treatment by a psychiatrist, which can give hope for further acceptance of life. Often relatives and friends of such people do not support their decision to die and are ready to fight for its cancellation. It is obvious that the problem is extremely complex, and the arguments of the opponents of such decisions are also quite justified.

Those who oppose euthanasia also appeal to the concept of the Overton window. Wikipedia defines the term as the concept of having a framework for the acceptable range of opinions in public statements in terms of public morality. The concept is used not only by researchers – political scientists and sociologists, but also by manipulators. With the help of certain tools, a phenomenon that seemed unacceptable can gradually be shifted in the eyes of society into the area of ​​the current norm.

Will the gradual introduction of euthanasia out of compassion for the seriously ill (and its acceptance by people as a reasonable and standard option) lead to the legalization of compulsory euthanasia – first for medical reasons, then for ideological reasons? Supporters of this idea recall that Hitler forcibly took the life of disabled children under the age of three and other people who, for the ideology of fascism, were “the ballast of society,” and this is not the only example from the history of mankind.

All these disputes once again prove the already obvious – the topic is very controversial and ambiguous. Even where euthanasia is legalized, approaches to its implementation differ. In international practice, the term assisted dying is used, which is translated in Russian texts as “assisted suicide”. In some countries, a person who has received a permit is helped to die by an affiliated health worker who is required to ask one last time if the patient has changed his mind. In other cases, according to the law, a person carries out his intention himself, under the supervision of doctors, and he also has the opportunity to change his mind at the last moment.

In the first variant, a contradictory situation arises in which a physician who has taken an oath “do no harm” and whose work is to save lives becomes, albeit legalized, but a murderer. Michael Wenham from the UK, who suffers from a terminal motor neurone disease, writes on his blog: “Investing in better palliative care is where true compassion comes in” and calls assisted suicide “a perversion of therapy.”

In the second option, the person performs the permitted action in the presence of a doctor or nurse himself, thereby assuming the main burden of responsibility for voluntary death and its consequences (for example, the inevitable feeling of guilt and pain of loss that his relatives then experience).

Euthanasia is legally prohibited in Russia. “Every second Russian considers the euthanasia procedure acceptable for people with severe incurable diseases that are associated with severe suffering, while almost half of the country’s residents are unfamiliar with this concept. This is evidenced by the results surveyconducted by the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion”¹.

Those who get involved in the debate about euthanasia in Russia express polar opinions. Opponents of its legalization rely not only on religious and ideological convictions. Many believe that such a step requires a high level of civic consciousness and strict control when considering each application. Otherwise, there are high risks that it will become a tool for legalized murder. It’s scary to imagine what opportunities unscrupulous black realtors, impatient heirs, business competitors, and so on can get.

For many reasons, both cultural, historical and social, Russia today is not ready to consider such bills. A priority task, according to experts, should be considered the development of decent palliative care. Fortunately, this problem has been actively dealt with in recent years, although there is still a lot to be done.

“Euthanasia bills being considered in many countries are still divisive. This is a choice that affects many people. The talk of Bill C-14 and other similar bills is centered around ethics and morality. And this is undoubtedly important – to remember that human lives are behind all these legislative processes, ”recalls Robert Muller.

1. The All-Russian VTsIOM survey was conducted on February 4, 2019. The method is a telephone interview based on a random sample of fixed and mobile numbers of 1,6 thousand respondents, Russians over 18 years old. The maximum size of the error with a probability of 95% does not exceed 2,5%.