Ethics and legal aspects of the right to die with dignity

Ivana Mirevska
{"title":"Ethics and legal aspects of the right to die with dignity","authors":"Ivana Mirevska","doi":"10.5937/megrev2101213m","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Euthanasia is in liaison with ethics and law. This paper, which aims to contribute to the expert public debate on the introduction of euthanasia into Serbian legislation, the term terminology - euthanasia (as the Right to Die with Dignity) is the first to have been terminologically clarified. Furthermore, the text considers the obligations of other persons, arising out of this right and under what conditions the obligations of other persons arising from the said right constitute a restriction of their personality rights. By citing examples in the field of ethics and law, the text notes that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is in fact a product of inadequate thinking in the implementation of this distinction. Based on the ethical argumentation of the double effect, also the text points to the inadequacy of the ethical approach in the function of legal regulation of the problem of euthanasia. Using abundant literature, which, from the legal and ethical point of view, problematizes euthanasia, the author has come to conclusion that the right to dignity is a social value that needs to be lawfully formulated, so that possible abuses can be prevented - and at the same time avoiding burdening the burden of responsibility to other persons (whether or not these are subjects of the judiciary or medicine), who should implement the patient's desire to die with dignity. Also, the author sought to base this article on the belief that Serbian legislation should legally shape the conditions for active direct euthanasia.","PeriodicalId":55747,"journal":{"name":"Megatrend Revija","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Megatrend Revija","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5937/megrev2101213m","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Euthanasia is in liaison with ethics and law. This paper, which aims to contribute to the expert public debate on the introduction of euthanasia into Serbian legislation, the term terminology - euthanasia (as the Right to Die with Dignity) is the first to have been terminologically clarified. Furthermore, the text considers the obligations of other persons, arising out of this right and under what conditions the obligations of other persons arising from the said right constitute a restriction of their personality rights. By citing examples in the field of ethics and law, the text notes that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is in fact a product of inadequate thinking in the implementation of this distinction. Based on the ethical argumentation of the double effect, also the text points to the inadequacy of the ethical approach in the function of legal regulation of the problem of euthanasia. Using abundant literature, which, from the legal and ethical point of view, problematizes euthanasia, the author has come to conclusion that the right to dignity is a social value that needs to be lawfully formulated, so that possible abuses can be prevented - and at the same time avoiding burdening the burden of responsibility to other persons (whether or not these are subjects of the judiciary or medicine), who should implement the patient's desire to die with dignity. Also, the author sought to base this article on the belief that Serbian legislation should legally shape the conditions for active direct euthanasia.
有尊严地死去的权利的伦理和法律方面
安乐死是符合道德和法律的。本文旨在为塞尔维亚立法中引入安乐死的专家公开辩论做出贡献,术语术语-安乐死(作为有尊严地死亡的权利)是第一个在术语上得到澄清的。此外,案文考虑了其他人因这项权利而承担的义务,以及在何种条件下,其他人因该权利而承担的义务构成对其人格权的限制。通过引用伦理和法律领域的例子,文章指出,主动和被动安乐死之间的区别实际上是在这种区别的实施中思想不足的产物。在双重效应的伦理论证基础上,指出了伦理途径在安乐死问题法律规制功能上的不足。作者利用大量的文献,从法律和伦理的角度对安乐死提出了问题,得出结论,尊严权是一种社会价值,需要依法制定,这样才能防止可能的滥用,同时避免给其他人(无论这些人是否是司法或医学的主体)带来责任负担,他们应该实现病人有尊严地死去的愿望。此外,发件人试图将这篇文章建立在塞尔维亚立法应该在法律上塑造积极直接安乐死的条件的信念之上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信