What arguments are put forward against euthanasia. Opinions of various experts about their acceptance or non-acceptance of euthanasia, as well as whether it can be legalized in Russia. Euthanasia is prohibited in Russia

— I would call my attitude to the problem of euthanasia complex. Moreover, the more you come into contact with this problem, the more ambiguous your attitude towards it. It is anesthesiologists-resuscitators who basically “defend the last line.” And it is we who, more often than doctors of other specialties, except pathologists and forensic doctors, probably have to deal with “unpromising” patients. I deliberately omit here questions related to identifying the patient's wishes. After all, a patient in a critical condition—between life and death—can rarely fully express his wishes. His fate almost entirely depends on the decisions and actions of other people - relatives, doctors and many, many others, even electricians and elevator operators on duty.

In our country, there is a meager number of palliative (hospice) care departments and a system of home visiting for terminally ill patients is not developed.

There are especially big problems in organizing long-term prosthetics of vital functions at home, in particular, artificial pulmonary ventilation. Because of this, most “unpromising” patients end up in intensive care units, where they are sometimes “stuck” for many months and even years. The futility of treating some patients is quite obvious to doctors due to their professional knowledge of the nature of the disease and life experience.

When talking about euthanasia, we usually mean patients in an incurable state (that is, one that, in principle, cannot be cured with modern methods), experiencing excruciating suffering from the disease and the medical procedures associated with its treatment. But it is important not to forget about those sick people whose condition cannot always be fully called life. I mean deep comatose states with actual brain death - the so-called vegetative states. Relatives are very tired from a long hopeless illness - it is very difficult to wait for months for the death of a loved one; Families are often destroyed. Any such patient inevitably consumes resources: a bed is occupied, equipment is occupied, medications are used, and staff are employed. All this could be used to save other patients - those whom timely medical intervention could preserve as productive members of society. Taking into account the “wave-like” arrival of patients in critical conditions (“sometimes thick, sometimes empty”), sooner or later, a situation of resource shortage almost inevitably arises, when temporary preservation of the life of one means death for another. Let me give you an example. All available beds and equipment in the intensive care unit are occupied by seriously ill patients - it is clear that it is impossible to “throw out” anyone. And the ambulance team has to take the patient with extensive internal bleeding to another hospital. An increase in the duration of transportation turns out to be fatal for him. Although, if there were places in the department, his chances of survival would be different from zero.

Someone will probably say that it is necessary to increase healthcare costs and create such reserves so that all “promising” patients survive and recover.

This good wish is not objectionable, but life is what it is. Let’s assume that we will someday achieve complete provision of medical resources to all citizens in “ordinary” life (which in itself is akin to building communism). Sooner or later, there will inevitably be a concentration of a large number of patients somewhere. A bus accident, an earthquake, an epidemic, an airplane crash, a terrorist attack, a major fire, or war are all examples of emergencies that involve a dramatic increase in the need for medical care. There are many patients, but doctors and the resources they have are few. In such situations, doctors have to make difficult decisions - how to distribute a limited amount of medical resources (people, effort, time, drugs, equipment, etc.) so that the maximum number of victims survives. Someone inevitably ends up left out. It would seem that in the above situations, euthanasia of a patient in a hopeless state is humane not only in relation to himself (because it reduces suffering), but also to another person who is in dire need of medical resources that have become scarce in a specific place and time.

On the other hand, speaking about euthanasia, one cannot help but raise the question of “euthanasiologists”: who exactly should carry out this procedure? Those who talk about the “need for euthanasia” are usually ready to talk a lot, but they themselves do not want to be performers. After all, the border between euthanasia and murder is very precarious - both in terms of possible criminal prosecution and in moral and ethical terms. It is one thing to talk theoretically and give advice to others, and another thing to perform euthanasia with your own hands. I'll tell you a very old story. There was a dying child in the department.

The child’s condition was agonal, no one experienced any illusions - the last hours of life were passing, artificially supported by medical equipment and medications. A very experienced and really good nurse (already almost a doctor at that time - a final year medical student), guided by pity for the dying child, suggested that the resuscitator on duty turn off the ventilator.

The argument was detailed and well-founded. As a result, the doctor got tired of this conversation and suggested that she turn off the device herself if she thought it was right. The girl refused. It is not so easy to press a button, knowing in advance that as a result of your action the person will immediately die. With great difficulty they “held out” the patient until the morning - he died a few hours later.

When training doctors, an ethical foundation is laid from the very first day - to do everything possible to save the patient’s life. The joint struggle for other people's lives with minimal chances and inevitable losses unites the team of intensive care units: employees understand each other often without any words. The concept of “euthanasia” is in deep conflict with this basic moral principle. It seems to me that it is very difficult to overcome this conflict within yourself. None of us looked into the “book of destinies.” The burden of making decisions and taking action at this level is immensely heavy.

And one more important aspect. During my professional career, medical technologies have changed significantly. Today, patients whose diseases and conditions were “unpromising” for medicine relatively recently are surviving and recovering. If doctors practiced euthanasia based on negative past experiences, they would never learn how to cure them. On this positive note, I will avoid a direct answer to the question about my attitude to the legalization of euthanasia and will summarize the well-known motto: “Do what you must - and let it be as it will be.”

Oncologist surgeon, director and founder of the Eurasian Federation of Oncology Somasundaram Subramanian:

— The issue of euthanasia is very controversial. On the one hand, life is the greatest value, and a modern humane society, guided by high moral and moral principles, must look for other ways to help hopeless and seriously suffering patients. In the 21st century, given all the colossal advances in medicine and pharmacology, it is impossible to even imagine that we have the right to offer patients death as a solution! It is necessary to develop new tools and methods that will not only prolong the life of incurable patients, but, more importantly, ensure its high quality. It is important to create conditions under which a person would remain a full-fledged member of society and an individual until the end of his days.

On the other hand, even after saving a terminal patient from physical suffering (by anesthetizing him and providing the necessary care with the help of artificial respiration devices and other technologies), it is impossible to protect the patient from mental anguish.

For many patients, the very thought of living in a helpless state, when they are constantly forced to seek help, even from close people, is unacceptable, and they are afraid of becoming a burden to their loved ones. Therefore, it is necessary to provide every person with the right to choose.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, we in Russia are still far from legalizing euthanasia. Before making such a decision, it is necessary to create an appropriate infrastructure, including the training of competent doctors and medical personnel, and lawyers with medical education. In addition, civil society must also develop accordingly.

For now, I am against the legalization of euthanasia in Russia. Doctors and society as a whole should not turn a blind eye to the problem of terminal patients, choosing the simplest and most cowardly path.

Anesthesiologist-resuscitator, candidate of medical sciences Maria Menshikh:

— At this stage of development of relations between society and doctors, the legalization of euthanasia is impossible. Suspicion, and even open hostility, cultivated not without the participation of the authorities and some media in society towards doctors, will only intensify with the legalization of euthanasia. The legalization of euthanasia will only lead to increased hysteria around “killer doctors,” and “killers” in the literal sense of the word. The absolute legal insecurity of doctors and the lack of adequate legal support (it is no secret that the qualifications of lawyers in hospitals leaves much to be desired) at the administration level will lead to new lawsuits against doctors. Before legalizing euthanasia, a powerful educational campaign in the media is necessary, as well as the development of legislation on this issue, which will clearly spell out the entire procedure for making a decision on euthanasia, and the articles of the law will not allow ambiguous interpretations.

My personal attitude towards euthanasia is ambiguous.

On the one hand, I understand that alleviating the suffering of an incurable patient is a good cause. On the other hand, does a doctor have the moral right to make a decision to turn off life support systems (even if not individually, but at a consultation) and thereby actually equate himself to the Lord God? (to be clear, I do not identify myself with any religion, although I believe in the presence of some higher principle). I haven't found the answer to this question yet.

Death. According to statistics, every third person is afraid of this word and what stands behind it. One can only imagine how difficult it is for bedridden patients and patients with incurable diseases. In modern society, with established attitudes towards life and attitude towards death for the sick, in Russia debates have long been raging about the humanity of a good death. For each person this word has its own meaning and attitude, but what is euthanasia for people for whom there is no way to end their suffering due to illness, except to hasten the approach of death? How does the legislation in Russia relate to this?

What is assisted death

Everyone knows that the term means the intentional termination of the life of a person or animal for medical reasons. That is, in the case of congenital abnormalities that bring suffering to humans, as well as in severe and incurable diseases of people or animals. The history of euthanasia begins before the Second World War; the term and the procedure itself are carried out mainly in European countries. At the same time, the procedure was always prohibited in Russia.

In those days, people did not put forward arguments, did not argue about whether it was right to use such a method as euthanasia. For or against voting in different countries began to be carried out after the end of the war, due to the mass extermination of people by the Nazis. And, as a rule, opinions are divided. There are currently two types of assisted death:

At the moment, a lot of controversy and controversy arises on such a topic as the legal aspects of euthanasia. Moreover, there are several states in the world where euthanasia is legalized, but in the rest of the world, euthanasia is prohibited by law.

Reasons for vetoing

Such medical intervention in a patient's life can be compromised. In the case where this is voluntary euthanasia and the person is of adequate consciousness and can consciously make such decisions, it is one thing. But the problem is that the doctor may be under pressure from many other factors or reasons:

• Intentional silence by the patient about an allergic reaction to any drug;
• The decision of relatives for a fully capable patient for the purpose of personal enrichment or for other reasons;
• Difficulty in accurately determining the incurability of a particular disease;
• Strong influence of religion - most religions do not accept suicide.

Euthanasia is prohibited in Russia and any form of it is regarded as killing another person. This concept is included in the legislation; euthanasia in Russia is strictly prohibited. Even in the criminal code there is article No. 105 - intentional causing of death. Of course, there are mitigating circumstances, such as the motivation for such a murder is compassion. Often, lawyers who deal with such cases explain that medical euthanasia is just fulfilling the request of a seriously ill person or his relatives.

Allow or deny

Despite the debate that has been going on for many decades, it will be possible to make it legal only when the procedure itself is thought through and included in a bill that allows sick people to have the right to euthanasia. Have the right to end your life for medical reasons and not suffer.

This also includes euthanasia of animals and child euthanasia - and in both cases, it is not the patient himself who has to make the decision. This complicates the situation quite a lot, because everyone has the right to manage their life the way they want. In any medical institution, the doctor’s duty is to improve the patient’s condition and his health, but not vice versa. Some believe that euthanasia is a person's right to their own death.

All this complicates legalization. The lack of organization of the legislative base in Russia cannot streamline and simplify the procedure for a good death. This also happens because at the moment, for example, in Russia, it is impossible to agree on all points of view on this issue and decide how necessary and important euthanasia is in the country, for or against - the arguments are quite weighty. Even from a psychological point of view, there is controversy, which makes the ethical issues of euthanasia even more serious and difficult to decide.

From a legal point of view

In Russia there are now two documents that can decide and establish a person’s right to a good death. This is the constitution and health law. Based on these documents, a person has the right to refuse medical intervention for his own reasons, but the second law prohibits doctors from stopping actions to maintain a person’s life, even in the case when the patient’s brain is dead and the person’s body is fully equipped with devices.

The right of a citizen in Russia to refuse medical care is almost completely identical to the concept of passive euthanasia. But at the same time, the legislation itself prohibits doctors from not providing assistance. Thus, it is still not clear whether passive euthanasia is allowed in Russia.

However, despite the current ban in Russia, there are cases where seriously ill patients who are at home were killed by relatives. A family experiences enormous psychological pressure when a person continues to suffer from an illness and some relatives decide to do similar things. Accordingly, after legal proceedings, according to the law in Russia, such people are punished.

It is not uncommon for healthcare workers to be blamed after a patient's death, as they have access to many medications. But more often than not, the investigation finds those who are truly guilty – the patient’s family. Since in Russia the punishment for doctors is quite severe - imprisonment and a ban on conducting medical activities, none of them wants to lose the opportunity to do their favorite job and calling.

Countries that allow euthanasia

Indeed, despite the fact that this problem seems so complex and insoluble, a number of states were able to come to a common opinion and made types of euthanasia available to people. At the same time, the procedure for preparing papers and necessary documents has been simplified so that a sick person does not have to wait a large amount of time, which can be unpleasant for his general well-being. Which countries allow euthanasia?

• Switzerland;
• Belgium;
• Netherlands;
• Several US states:
• Canada;
• Luxembourg.

At the moment, only in these states is euthanasia permitted by law. For everyone, all the necessary information is freely available, free for review, covering everything - what euthanasia is, how the procedure occurs, what papers need to be obtained. For many people from different countries, the fact that euthanasia, the right to die, is allowed for citizens of other states, including Russia, is very important. However, there are countries in which the attitude towards euthanasia is twofold - only passive is allowed:

• Israel;
• Germany;
• France;
• Albania;
• Spain.

People living in these countries have the right to choose when they die and even where the procedure will be performed - at home or in a medical facility.

Story! Frenchwoman Chantal Sebier, aged 52, living in Côte d'Or (centre of France), suffered from an incurable tumor of the nasal cavity for eight years. This tumor greatly deformed her face and caused her great physical suffering. Chantal made an official request for euthanasia, but it never came. She was found dead in her apartment. This story received great public attention and gave rise to numerous disputes and debates.

Features of the event

An important component in the question of a good death is the financial side. It is clear that different countries will have different costs for the procedure. For example, euthanasia in Switzerland costs 4,000 €, but in Belgium for a resident the price is already included in the insurance and the person spends no more than $100 on additional expenses. Countries that allow euthanasia have a special service that carries out the procedure. Her responsibilities even include meeting a person upon entering the country, as well as helping with paperwork.

Important! If a person wants to go to another state for the procedure, it is worth contacting the attending physician and a lawyer who will tell and help with paperwork.

In almost all of these countries, a person must submit his request to a special commission twice, and then wait no more than three months to receive a response. If during the review it is determined that no further measures can improve the patient’s condition, the commission’s decision is submitted to the court, where a final decision is made and the patient is informed. After this, the person can choose where euthanasia will be performed - at home or in the hospital, and even set a date.

Bottom line

More and more countries that previously banned euthanasia are changing their decision. The legislature is guided by the fact that every person has the right to die in comfortable conditions and even the opportunity to choose the day of the procedure.

It often happens that not all relatives can agree with a person’s decision and accept it. Undoubtedly, euthanasia has disadvantages that most affect ethical and legal standards.

But what can those patients do who have no chance of survival and cure for the disease? When can medicine fail to help a person and, in some cases, even reduce suffering? In such cases, the benefits of euthanasia include ending suffering for seriously ill patients. The problem of euthanasia has existed for many decades, and gradually different states are changing their decision in favor of the human right to a quiet and peaceful death. Perhaps Russia will soon join the number of states where euthanasia is allowed.

Video

“I will not give anyone the deadly drug they ask for, and I will not show the way for such a plan...” - these lines from the Hippocratic Oath are familiar to every doctor. But in recent years, the practice of ending the life of a terminally ill person experiencing unbearable suffering, with the consent of the patient or his closest relative, has become increasingly popular. In medicine, this practice is called euthanasia.

For the first time the word " euthanasia" was used in the 16th century by the English philosopher Francis Bacon to define an "easy death." Before the outbreak of World War II, euthanasia was widespread in a number of European countries. For example, in 1939, the father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, committed euthanasia with the help of a doctor in his London apartment. he had oral cancer, which could not be cured even after 31 operations to remove the tumor.Euthanasia began to be prohibited after the war, when the Nazis clearly demonstrated the T-4 killing program.

Currently, people's attitude towards euthanasia is different. Someone believes that if a person suffers greatly and wants to die, or if his loved ones and relatives have come to the conclusion to stop his suffering, then fulfilling their desire is very humane. Others, on the contrary, argue that euthanasia gives the right to suicide, and gives the patient’s relatives a chance to achieve their selfish goals. After all, if the patient is in a coma and permission will have to be asked from relatives, there is no guarantee that they will not give consent, just to avoid the financial costs of caring for him or to speed up the procedure for inheriting his condition.

A pioneer country which legalized euthanasia, became the Netherlands in 1984. Following the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg joined the practice by passing legislation on voluntary end of life and the role of the doctor in this process. In 1999, Albania allowed euthanasia for comatose patients after obtaining the consent of 3 relatives. Since 2002, the Netherlands has allowed euthanasia for children over 12 years of age, and since 2014 in Belgium, a child of any age can receive euthanasia with the consent of his parents or next of kin.

In the canton Zurich Switzerland euthanasia has been permitted since 1941, and now suicide tourism is thriving there. Citizens of England and Germany, where euthanasia is prohibited, travel specifically to Zurich to voluntarily die. In 2005, pharmacies in Belgium began selling special kits intended for euthanasia. This kit includes a disposable syringe with a poisonous solution and injection equipment. You can buy such a kit for about 60 euros with a doctor's prescription.

IN USA Euthanasia is allowed in only 4 states - Oregon, Washington, Georgia and Vermont. In other states, euthanasia is illegal; there, the media regularly publish information about how American doctors go against the law and help seriously ill people commit suicide.

According to Criminal Code of Azerbaijan, a doctor who assisted in the voluntary death of a seriously ill patient, faces a penalty of up to 3 years in prison and deprivation of the right to work in his profession. In Russia, euthanasia is also considered a criminal offense and is punishable by law. In most cases, when imposing a penalty, it is equated to premeditated murder, unless there is evidence that a compassionate motive was present when committing the crime.

U euthanasia, like any other procedure, there are pros and cons regarding the fundamental inadmissibility of the procedure or its necessity. Pros are arguments for, and cons are arguments against:

Arguments for:
- To maintain the life of an incurable patient suffering from unbearable pain, a lot of money is required;
- an incurable disease leads to degradation, which means that a lethal injection is a salvation of a person from the risk of being a burden to loved ones and a chance to remain in their memory in the best quality;
- When suffering prevails over pleasures, negative feelings over positive ones, life is no longer good for a person.

Arguments against:
- it is difficult to make the right choice between life and death when a person is suffering or is his closest relative;
- no one has the right to decide who lives and who dies;
- suicide is a great sin;
- life is the highest good, and we must fight for it until the last minute.

Video lesson about euthanasia - Jack Kevorkian. Doctor killer or euthanasia specialist?

Return to section table of contents "

82548 27.11.2012

A good death - what is it? This is a translation of the Greek word for euthanasia. Anna Sonkina presented arguments for and against euthanasia in her lecture given on November 26 at the Polytechnic Museum

A good death - what is it? This is a translation of the Greek word for euthanasia. Anna Sonkina presented arguments for and against euthanasia in her lecture given on November 26 at the Polytechnic Museum

Vladimir LOMOV

A good death - what is it? It turns out that this is how the word “euthanasia” is translated from Greek. How do we feel about a “good death”? What do we mean by this concept and are there points of contact between our ideas about a good death and euthanasia: Anna Sonkina, a palliative doctor, palliative care consultant at the Orthodox Service “Mercy”, spoke about this in her lecture given on November 26 at the Polytechnic Museum "

1. Medical ethics has changed a lot over several centuries. Previously, everyone relied on the Hippocratic Oath, the basic principle of which goes something like this: do whatever you want, but do no harm. The ethics of Hippocratic medicine are very paternalistic: the doctor is king and god, he knows everything. Today, medical ethics is based on four ethical principles. None of them is leading, all are equal:

Illustration copyright Thinkstock Image caption Supporters of the bill argued that its passage would allow terminally ill people to die with dignity.

The British Parliament has rejected a bill that proposed allowing euthanasia (physician-assisted suicide) for terminally ill people.

Opponents of the bill argue that legalizing euthanasia could put psychological pressure on older people to commit suicide. This was the third attempt to legalize euthanasia in Britain since 1997.

Euthanasia is one of the most sensitive and painful problems of modern society. The term euthanasia comes from two Greek roots - "eu" (good) and "thanatos" (death).

Thus, euthanasia is a “good death.” In some countries, the very raising of the question of legally legalized assistance to a person in dying seems blasphemous; in others, this has long been a legalized practice.

The problem of euthanasia is at the intersection of a huge complex of disciplines - medicine, law, religion, philosophy, and for a full discussion of it, the participation of specialists from all these fields is necessary.

The presenter of “The Fifth Floor” Alexander Kan invited two people to participate in the program: medicine is represented by Yuri Konev, Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Therapy and Geriatrics at the Moscow State Medical and Dental University, and religion is represented by Father Vladimir Nikiforov, a priest living in London.

You can download the “Fifth Floor” podcast.

Alexander Kan: Father Vladimir, do you think that the problem of euthanasia in British society is ripe?

Vladimir Nikiforov: Yes. The number of people who go abroad to end their lives is increasing - to Switzerland, where there is a special agency. Neighboring countries have different views on this: in Holland they treat this quite simply, and this constantly arouses public opinion.

I visit hospitals quite regularly, I am called to see the dying, I know this firsthand. Seeing a person suffer when medicine cannot alleviate it is an experience that cannot be forgotten. Something must be done in this regard.

A.K.: But the result of today's vote is negative. How unexpected is this?

V.N.: I myself would vote against this law. The main problem is suffering, no matter how long a person has left to live. Unbearable suffering must be alleviated. But the bill misses the point. Who decides that a person has less than six months to live? The procedure is not prescribed at all.

For example, in many hospitals such patients take up space, why don’t they die early and free up a bed? Such cases have happened. A morally dishonest doctor can lie and send a patient to the next world. There was Dr. Shipman, who sent almost 200 patients to the next world.

A.K.: Well, Dr. Shipman wasn't motivated by the idea of ​​alleviating the suffering of patients, which is what euthanasia is all about. How realistic is it to discuss such a problem in Russia at the parliamentary level?

Yuri Konev: For now this is hardly possible. I agree with today's decision of the British Parliament, which is extremely rare for me. In Russia, in accordance with the law, medical workers are prohibited from performing euthanasia or hastening the death of a patient at his request. Both by actions and inaction.

Although there are subparagraphs that relate to resuscitation measures, when clinical death occurs, the vital functions of the body have stopped and they are potentially irreversible.

A.K.: You mentioned action and inaction. This is the so-called passive and active euthanasia. When active, the doctor intervenes and hastens the death of the patient, while the patient suffers from an incurable disease and is close to death one way or another.

With passive, the doctor does not interfere in the patient’s life, but also does not, at the patient’s request, which is very important, provide the necessary assistance to prolong it. For you, as a physician, there is no difference between these two concepts?

Yu.K.: This issue must be considered from the position of the doctor, from the position of the patient and from the position of the state. My opinion is that any intervention that contributes to death is murder. And from the patient’s point of view, there is such a thing as physician-assisted suicide. It seems to be “on its own,” although the doctor prepared the remedy for it. And what kind of doctor is he after that?

From the point of view of the state, in this case, funds are saved that are spent on a hopeless patient, that is, it is beneficial for the state.

A.K.: What is the position of the church? The Anglican Church and its head, the Archbishop of Canterbury, officially oppose the legalization of euthanasia. But former Archbishop Lord Carey is in favor of legalizing it.

V.N.: This issue has been debated in the Catholic Church for decades. Here, too, there was a distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Anyone has the right to refuse treatment. Treatment should then be stopped. You can stop the forced supply of food and water if the body no longer accepts them. But this cannot be done with the intention of killing the patient.

This was discussed relatively recently in connection with John Paul II, who suffered terribly from Parkinson's disease, so this issue affected him personally. I don’t know if he refused treatment, but he died of natural causes. But there is not much room for maneuver here. And empathy is more important than dogma.

A.K.: This is a very important idea. If life turns into continuous suffering for the patient, and his only desire is to end this suffering, is not the corresponding action or inaction a manifestation of mercy? And mercy is also a medical duty.

Yu.K.: Great Britain is the birthplace of an alternative to euthanasia, palliative care. A person should not suffer. There is a Liverpool consensus that describes the last 48 hours of a dying patient. Palliative care allows the patient to feel little or no pain.

Secondly, quite obvious changes are taking place at the mental level. This is depression that leads to the decision to die prematurely. If medicine manages to remove these prerequisites, then such a decision will not be made.

A.K.: That is, the desire to die expressed by the patient is not the result of a clearly conscious decision, but the result of the consequences of the disease?

Yu.K.: Certainly.

A.K.: And recently a message came from California, which became the sixth state to legalize euthanasia. It is legal in Belgium, Holland and Switzerland. These are countries with well-developed economies and high standards of living. And it seems that since such a decision was made there, then this is where we are all moving.

V.N.: The question is not only that there are dying people who need to make their last hours easier. There are people who have lost the opportunity to lead a normal life and are burdened by it. It may not be an acute pain, but a constant one that cannot be relieved by anything.

Medicine does not have a painkiller for all occasions. People scream for hours in pain, but there is no help for them. Depression often has a well-founded basis. It seems to me that the path lies through some normal social procedure.

Let's say in America there is the death penalty, but years pass between the verdict and the execution because they are afraid to execute an innocent person. You can do the same here. It’s not like waiting for years, but developing a procedure that would eliminate the possibility of mistakes and pressure.

The decision must be a collective one, and doctors should not be part of this team. They only have to make a diagnosis and give a prognosis. And the decision must be made by some kind of jury.

There may be abuse here. There is a known case when a woman was admitted to the hospital and found a code on her bed. She found out that it meant that she did not need to be given CPR because she was over a certain age.

A complex problem cannot be solved by simple means. There must be a system that protects the patient from unjustified killing.

A.K.: So far we have talked about cases when the patient himself shows a desire, one way or another expresses his will. What if the patient is no longer able to make decisions for himself? When a person is in a coma and huge amounts of money are spent on maintaining his life? Is there any reason to turn off this equipment if a person is brain dead?

Yu.K.: This practice exists currently. Abuse is also possible here. Relatives may want to receive an inheritance. The law on euthanasia was first passed in Australia, but was repealed a year later. And in history, the first law on euthanasia was passed by Adolf Hitler in 1939.

A.K.: This is a scary reminder. This issue has been debated for decades, and the arguments on both sides seem very compelling. And it seems to me that there is no solution.

V.N.: There may be a solution, but it requires historical experience to gradually build it with careful steps. What parliament proposed today was a careless step. We need to think about the procedure.

If there is a law, you need to think about how it will be applied. On the other hand, one can hope for the progress of medicine, which will relieve pain and suffering.

Media playback is unsupported on your device