Evtanazija med religijo in pravom

diplomsko delo

Selim Bajrektarević (Author), Borut Holcman (Mentor)

Abstract

Evtanazija? Dostojanstvena smrt ali odvzem življenja, pomoč v življenjski stiski ali kaznivo dejanje. Večna dilema, ki jo najdemo na vseh stopnjah družbenega življenja. V medicini, kjer zdravniki bijejo bitko sami s sabo, ali naj umirajočemu skrajšajo bolečine ali podaljšajo neizogibno. V pravu, kjer zakonodaja na vse načine poskuša s pravili evtanazijo zadržati pod kontrolo, jo legalizirati, vendar vedno naletijo na težave zlorabe teh pravil, zaradi katerih je dilema še večja. Tu je tudi področje ekonomije, nekateri zagovarjajo evtanazijo zaradi ekonomskih faktorjev, ker naj bi skrb in zdravljenje umirajočih državo in posameznike drago stala, obenem pa po nepotrebnem zasedajo mesta v bolnišnicah, ki bi jih lahko koristili drugi. Bistvo je, da je evtanazija danes vsepovsod, sam pomen te besede pa je s časoma postal negativen, kar je tudi glavni dejavnik vseh dilem, razprav, nesoglasij in sporov, vodenih predvsem s strani pripadnikov religije. Pa je bilo vedno tako? Če se vrnemo v obdobje, ko je evtanazija prvič omenjena, bomo spoznali čisto nasprotje pojmu, kot ga poznamo danes. Pojem evtanazija izhaja iz grščine in pomeni dobra smrt, torej smrt kot način, na kateri je vsak želel zapustiti ta svet. Celo vsemogočni voditelji v stari antiki so si želeli evtanazijo za svoj konec, saj je pomenila umreti častno in dostojanstveno. Vprašajmo se, kje smo naredili napako, kje se je zalomilo, da danes častna in dostojanstvena smrt za večino pomeni vdiranje v zasebnost, odvzem pravice do življenja, nekateri gredo tako daleč, da s tem pojmom označujejo najhujše kaznivo dejanje – umor. Je bila preteklost bolj človeška od sedanjosti? Smo imeli ljudje več spoštovanja, boljše medsebojne odnose, več tolerance? Vse to so vprašanja, ki ostajajo neodgovorjena. Zgodovina evtanazije se je spreminjala, na eni strani smo imeli nacizem, katerega pripadniki so mislili, da so nekaj več, superiorna vrsta, ki v svoji bližini ne sme imeti slabe in šibke, ker jih samo zavirajo v njihovem razvoju. Tako so v evtanaziji videli možnost, da se takšnih »odvečnih« oseb znebijo in sčasoma so neozdravljivo bolne zamenjali s slabimi in šibkimi, te pa v najhujših časih nacizma z otroki in pripadniki druge vrste. Na drugi strani pa je v veliki meri odmevala religija, ker pa je vse bolj dobivala na moči, je bil tudi njen vpliv na oblast in družbo čedalje večji. Glavni moto religije je bil: »Človek je stvaritev Boga in samo on ima pravico upravljati z njegovim življenjem«. S tem se je tudi začel konflikt religije in prava. Pravo na eni strani (kot glas družbe in pravic posameznika, da sami odločajo o svojem življenju, o smrti in na kakšen način bodo umrli) in religija na drugi strani (kot večni argument proti evtanaziji). Ljudje z vse več težavami, bolezni in stiskami so v evtanaziji videli rešitev težav zase in za svoje bližnje, katerim so bili samo v breme. Začela so se pojavljati evtanazijska združenja in vse večji pritiski na zakonodajo, da se evtanazija legalizira. Največ uspeha so imeli na Nizozemskem, v zvezni državi Oregon v ZDA in v Severnem teritoriju Avstralije, kjer so evtanazijo uzakonili in jo izvrševali pod strogimi pravili in pogoji. Sledile so jim tudi druge države, tako da je evtanazija postala nekaj vsakdanjega. Večina držav pa ima evtanazijo še vedno prepovedano in njeno izvršitev preganja kot kaznivo dejanje. Ena izmed takih držav je tudi Slovenija, ki pozna samo dve dovoljeni obliki evtanazije: prekinitev zdravljenja in terapijo z dvojnim učinkom. Pod vplivom nasprotnikov evtanazije in religije, krščanstva in islama kot dveh največjih religij, se je izoblikovala tudi alternativa evtanaziji, kot neka vmesna rešitev, ki pomaga bolniku lajšati bolečine, obenem pa se ne vtika v njegovo dostojanstvo in naravni potek smrti. Evtanazija je bila in bo tudi v prihodnje vedno tema razprav in sporov, ker je skup pravic, ki si že same po sebi nasprotujejo. Oseba si želi smrti, da s tem obvaruje sebe in bližnje trpljenja, njegovi bližnji pa ga o

Keywords

evtanazija;religija;vera;umori;pravo;diplomska dela;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	2012
Source:	Maribor
Typology:	2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:	UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher:	[S. Bajrektarević]
UDC:	179.7(043.2)
COBISS:	4310315
Views:	4560
Downloads:	987
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	English
Secondary title:	EUTHANASIA BETWEEN RELIGION AND LAW
Secondary abstract:	Euthanasia? Dignified death or a deprivation of life. Help in need or a crime. Eternal dilemma, that occurs in every level of society. In medicine, the doctors are in doubt whether to ease the pain of dying or to prolong the inevitable. In law, the legislation is trying to control the euthanasia by all means. It is trying to legalize it. However, there are still abuses to be found, which make the dilemma even greater. In economics, euthanasia is in favor by those, who claim that treatment and care for a dying person costs a lot, both the country and the individuals. Moreover, they claim that such people take space at hospital, which could be of benefit to others. The crucial thing is that nowadays euthanasia can be found everywhere. However, the meaning of the word has become negative. This is the main factor of all dilemmas, discussions, disagreements, and arguments, especially of those led by religious people. But has it always been this way? If we go back in time, when euthanasia was mentioned for the first time, we discover the real opposite of the meaning we know today. The term euthanasia derives from Greek and it means good death. It describes the way of dying everyone would want for himself when the time comes. Even the mighty leaders of Roman times wanted the euthanasia to be their end. It meant a dignified and honorable death. Lets ask ourselves: where have we done the mistake? Where have things gone wrong? Why does the honorable and dignified death nowadays mean the invasion of privacy? Some go as far as labeling the term with the worse crime – murder. Has the past been more humane than the present? Have people had more respect, better interpersonal relationships, and more tolerance? These are all questions, which remain unanswered. The history of euthanasia has been changing. We have known the Nazism, whose members thought they were something else. They thought they were superior breeds, which did not want to be surrounded by any weak people, because such would hinder their progress. Euthanasia meant a solution to reduce those unwanted people. Over time, the incurables were mistaken for weak people. At the worst time of Nazism, they were mistaken even for children and people of other races. On the other hand, the religion was becoming very popular and stronger with each day. Consequently, its impact on society was grater every day. The main motto of religion at that time was the following: “Man is a creature of God and only he has the right to manage his life.” That coused the beginning of a conflict between religion and law. Law on the one hand (as a voice of society and the rights of an individual to decide for himself about his life and the way he wants to die) and religion on the other hand (as an eternal argument against euthanasia). People with growing problems, diseases, and distress saw a solution for themselves in euthanasia. People began to establish so-called Euthanasia Assosiations. They were pursuing the legislation to legalise euthanasia. They have been the most successful in Netherlands, Oregon (USA) and in the Northern Australia, where the euthanasia was enacted and executed under strict rules and conditions. Netherlands were followed by other countries, so the euthanasia eventually became a common thing. However, the majority of countries still find euthanasia illegal and prosecute its execution. One of those countries is Slovenia. We have only two legal forms of euthanasia. These are: discontinuation of treatment and therapy with dual effects. There is an alternative euthanasia, that helps ease the pain, and at the same time it is not involved in the natural way of dying and the patients dignity. Euthanasia has always been a topic for debates and conflicts, because it is a set of rights that are contradictory by themselves. A person wants to die to protect himself and his family from suffering. At the same time, his family wants to keep him alive, because they love him. Religion as such, gives the right of living and dying only to God, the Creator. Whether it is a right or n
Secondary keywords:	euthanasia;good death;honorable death;dignity;murder;deprivation of life;illness;aging;dying;
URN:	URN:SI:UM:
Type (COBISS):	Undergraduate thesis
Thesis comment:	Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Pages:	73 f.
Keywords (UDC):	philosophy;psychology;filozofija;psihologija;moral philosophy;ethics;practical philosophy;moralna filozofija;etika;praktična filozofija;
ID:	996186