Ask for a graduation thesis on "euthanasia research"

On the Legislative Choice of Euthanasia in China

Abstract: Euthanasia is no longer a strange term. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek word "euthanasia", which consists of two words "beauty" and "death", also known as happiness, or euthanasia. Originally, it was to die safely under the influence of human external forces. This proposal was put forward as early as the 1930s. 1936, Britain first established the voluntary euthanasia association and put forward the euthanasia bill. Australia was the first country in the world to pass the euthanasia law, but it was soon abolished in 1997. In 2002, the Dutch House of Commons passed a bill to legalize euthanasia. The controversy about euthanasia in Terry's case mentioned in this paper mainly focuses on my will, ethics and legal practice. American vegetable Terri? Schiavo's life and death made people start a big discussion about euthanasia again. By analyzing and summarizing some viewpoints, this paper expounds the legal thinking on this issue.

Keywords: euthanasia; Law; moral philosophy

On the legislative choice of euthanasia from Terri Schiavo's incident

Abstract: Euthanasia is not a new term. Euthanasia originated from Greek euthanasia, and the two phrases "death" were followed by "light", which originally meant to say goodbye to this world safely under the action of human external forces. As early as1930s, the British first established the voluntary euthanasia association and put forward the euthanasia bill. Australia was the first country in the world to pass the "euthanasia law", which was abolished in 1997 but soon benefited. In 2002, the Dutch House of Commons passed a bill to legalize euthanasia. However, the controversy over Trishavo's euthanasia mainly focuses on some issues concerning her own will, ethics and legal practice. American vegetables, especially the Trishavo incident; "Life and Death" makes people start a free discussion on euthanasia again in summer. This paper explains the legal thinking of this topic by summarizing and analyzing some viewpoints.

Keywords: euthanasia; Law; moral philosophy

Terry. Shawo is a shy woman who likes small animals, music and basketball. She grew up in Pennsylvania and met Michael in 1982. Chavo, get married in two years. They later moved to Florida, where Terry worked for an insurance company. Due to losing weight all the year round, Terri's eating disorder eventually led to her complete illness at the age of 26 (1990). The doctor said that her heart stopped beating because of potassium imbalance. Before being rescued, her brain was deprived of oxygen 10 minutes, which caused serious brain damage and fell into a vegetative state. 1998, after the doctor diagnosed Terri as a "permanent vegetable" and there was no possibility of recovery, Terri's husband Michael applied to the Florida court for euthanasia. He thinks this is to respect Terri's wishes, because she has expressed her unwillingness to maintain her life by artificial means. But this request was opposed by Terry's parents. Since then, Michael and Terry's parents have been engaged in a protracted lawsuit for seven years. According to the emergency decree passed by the state legislature, Terry's feeding tube was removed twice and then reinserted twice. On March 18, 2005, the Florida court ruled for the third time to unplug her feeding tube. Later, the US Congress intervened in the case and authorized the federal court to hear the case. A federal court judge ruled on March 22 and refused to order the reinsertion of Terry's feeding tube. Since then, Terri's parents have appealed to different courts many times, and the results have all ended in failure. In this way, Terri passed away after 13 days of quarrel. The deceased has passed away, but the dispute over this matter continues. Euthanasia, which has always been concerned by people, has once again become a hot topic of discussion.

First, the concept of euthanasia and the general situation of euthanasia research at home and abroad

(A) the concept and subject of euthanasia

1. The concept of euthanasia

Euthanasia is no longer a strange term. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek word euthanasia, which consists of two words: beauty and death, and is also called happiness [1] or euthanasia [2]. There are broad and narrow understandings of euthanasia. A broad understanding includes that everything dies of "health" and is left to fend for itself and commit suicide; In a narrow sense, euthanasia is limited to patients with incurable diseases or patients whose death has begun. When they are suffering from extreme mental and physical pain, they will no longer use artificial methods to prolong their death process at the request of themselves or their families, but have to use artificial methods to end the patient's life painlessly to stop the severe pain [3]. At present, the folk understanding of the word "euthanasia" in China is mostly narrow.

2. The theme of euthanasia

Vegetarians are not the main targets of euthanasia. When we talk about "euthanasia", we must have the following premises: (1) The object of euthanasia is those patients who are in the terminal stage and suffering unbearable pain under the current medical conditions; (2) The patient himself has a strong desire for euthanasia; (3) The doctor must act and choose the painless ending method [4]. It can be seen that euthanasia is actually an active medical intervention by doctors in the process of death, at the explicit request of dying patients, in order to alleviate their unbearable pain.

(2) Overview of euthanasia research at home and abroad.

1. Overview of euthanasia research abroad

1935, the world's first group advocating voluntary euthanasia was formally established in Britain. Since 1950s, some western countries began to try to legislate for euthanasia. After more than 20 years of exploration and debate, California promulgated the natural death law in 1976 [5]. This is the first bill on euthanasia in human history.

1on February 9, 1993, the Dutch parliament passed the law of acquiescence to euthanasia, and then the scale of legalization of euthanasia was relaxed. 1The latest amendment passed on August 0, 1999 stipulates that anyone over 16 years old can decide whether to accept euthanasia at the last moment of his life if he is terminally ill. Now, about 25,000 people in the Netherlands die through euthanasia every year. 19941On the evening of October 20th, in Amsterdam, the capital of the Netherlands, nearly one million citizens witnessed the whole process of euthanasia of a 63-year-old man through a TV called "He chose to die". At present, euthanasia is very popular in the Netherlands. More than 80% of Dutch people are in favor of euthanasia.

In Britain, the call for legalization of euthanasia has been increasing in recent years. According to statistics, in the 1950s, less than half of people in Britain thought that euthanasia should be legalized, but at present, the proportion has risen to 82%. 1On February 4th, 993, the British Supreme Court decided the first euthanasia case in Britain, and approved the application of parents and doctors of a patient who was only 2 1 year old to stop giving him nutrient solution. 1on April 24th, 996, it was ruled that the euthanasia of 53-year-old Mrs Janet Johnson (who has been a vegetable for more than four years) was allowed. 1998, The Times reported that although euthanasia is still illegal, 27,000 people in Britain have ended their lives through euthanasia with the help of doctors.

Most Germans are also in favor of euthanasia. 1994 A poll in Germany conducted on 1004 Germans showed that 83% of them were in favor of euthanasia, and even as many as 88% of people under 30 were in favor of euthanasia. In Germany, the euthanasia association of 1994 has reached 44,000 members. During the period of 1999, the German Society of Surgeons regarded the restriction and termination of treatment under certain conditions as part of the principle of medical care for the first time.

1 99265438+1October1,Denmark experimented with a law to stop prolonging the life of terminally ill patients, which was welcomed by many people. Within four months, 45,000 people made wills, expressing their willingness to be euthanized if necessary.

Israel also carried out the first euthanasia approved by the court in 1998. Doctors in a hospital in Jerusalem injected a 49-year-old terminally ill male patient with a lethal dose of anesthetic.

1On May 25th, 996, the Parliament of Northern Territory of Australia passed the Law on the Rights of Terminal Patients [6], thus legalizing euthanasia in this area. Advocates believe that this is a great progress of human society. Finally, legislators in other Australian States are also preparing to enact euthanasia laws in their own countries.

The latest opinion polls in the United States show that euthanasia has accounted for the majority of the American public, including doctors. During the period of 1994, many media in the world reported that a terminally ill American woman "died poetically" in a peace song sung by her child [7].

2. China citizens' views on euthanasia

After the reform and opening up, the concept of euthanasia was introduced into China, and it soon became a hot topic of general concern. From 65438 to 0992, every year at the National People's Congress, the proposal group received a proposal on euthanasia, asking China to legislate to legalize euthanasia. Professor Cui Yitai, secretary of the Party Committee of Tianjin Medical University, the "father of hospice care in China", Professor Hu Yamei, honorary president of Beijing Children's Hospital and pediatrician, are all sponsors of euthanasia bill. They are not only striving for the legalization of euthanasia, but also saying that they will carry out euthanasia when necessary.

At present, the people in favor of euthanasia in China are mainly elderly people and people with high academic qualifications. In Shanghai, a questionnaire survey was conducted among 200 elderly people, and 72.56% of them agreed. In a similar survey in Beijing, the support rate was as high as 79.8%; According to Health News, a questionnaire survey of nearly 1,000 people in Beijing shows that more than 965,438+0% people are in favor of euthanasia, and 85% people think that euthanasia should be implemented by legislation.

Second, is it acceptable in terms of ethics and human rights protection?

(1) Euthanasia does not violate ethics.

In order to alleviate the pain of patients, under certain conditions, euthanasia for specific dying patients is ethically permissible. However, when it is implemented, it will still involve many emotional problems. For example, Terri's parents find it hard to accept watching their daughter die because of lack of nutrition and water. This kind of human nature is also easy to understand.

It seems that the legal and ethical debate on euthanasia has not subsided, and the legal and ethical interpretation of euthanasia may break through the deadlock in current theory and legislative practice. What are the benefits of euthanasia? Whether euthanasia can become a right depends first on what benefits it brings to people. Interest is something that meets needs. So we might as well take people's needs as the starting point of analysis. There are three dimensions of human existence [8]. The natural inevitability of man's existence as a physical body determines that man should satisfy his material needs through the practice of material production, thus constructing the relationship between man and nature. In this relationship, people are the eternal subject, and things as objects have only one-way effect on people, so there is no problem that people are useful to things. However, people must realize the activities of seeking realistic things that need to be satisfied in groups. This is the social inevitability of human existence and development. In other words, only in the combination of people can we gain the courage and strength to face nature.

The practice of material production not only creates human living conditions, but also produces human social relations, thus causing people's social life needs different from material life, such as communication, cooperation, home and safety, friendship, morality and so on. Social practice constructs the relationship between people, which is different from the relationship between people and things. It is the relationship between subjects, which makes the one-way utility relationship between people and things get rid of the rough and primitive "ecological" nature, and makes the natural needs of subjects bear the imprint of social culture. Whether the utility of objects can be realized as a realistic value existence form is restricted by the attitude and activity mode of subjects. This is not because the object cannot meet the needs of the subject, nor is it the subject. Therefore, in addition to the needs of material life and spiritual life, due to the emergence of human consciousness and self-awareness, people also need to know themselves and pursue self-improvement and self-realization Because interests are things and conditions to meet needs, three areas of interests correspond to people's three needs: material interests, social interests and personality interests. Among them, personal interests are regarded as the highest interests of human beings, and its core is personal dignity. Personal dignity, as a kind of value, lies in the need of self-realization, which occurs in people themselves. It is not the subject's need for things and people outside the body, but the subject's need for life, body, health and freedom that exists in itself. In a word, personal dignity, as a kind of interest, is innate and different from other economic and social interests. It happens naturally because of life and disappears naturally because of death. It is indeed the right to "take it when you are born and take it away when you die." Other interest relationship is the relationship between the subject and things and people other than himself, and it is "life does not bring, death does not take away." Personality interests belong to the category of body trust. People not only have the right to control things, but also have the right to control themselves. The former realizes material benefits, while the latter realizes personality benefits. The interest base of euthanasia is personality interest. The core of personal interests is personal dignity, that is, personal freedom and autonomy. A person has the right to treat his body in the way he likes, including choosing to die. This means allowing people to live their own lives according to their own independent decisions, without coercion or interference.

(2) Euthanasia is not a violation of human rights, but a protection of human rights.

The World Health Organization 1948 put forward in its charter: "Health is a state of physical, mental and social perfection, not just the absence of disease and weakness." As a stage of human life, death also needs a state of physical, mental and social perfection. Euthanasia is such a perfect state, which is essentially a state of realizing personal dignity. Obviously, euthanasia brings us not material interests, nor social interests, but personality interests. This is the most critical factor for us to discuss whether euthanasia is a right and what kind of right it is. In other words, to say that euthanasia is a right, it can only be a personality right, not a material or social right. But there is still a question here: if euthanasia is a personality right to control one's own interests independently and freely, will it conflict with the most critical right to life in personality interests? The crux of the problem lies in the view on the essence of euthanasia. Is the essence of euthanasia death? Euthanasia means dying peacefully. Here "happiness" defines the state of death, not the cause and nature of death. It just uses scientific methods to optimize and adjust the process of human death, eliminate the pain of death, optimize the state of death and make death happy. Therefore, the contradiction solved by euthanasia is not a question of "life or death", but a question of "quality of death"; Not from "life" to "death", but from "pain" to "joy"; Not "why did you die", but "how did you die". It can be seen that the only purpose of euthanasia is to relieve the pain of death, make people die peacefully and safeguard the dignity of death. In this way, it is ridiculous to call euthanasia the right to die. Because death itself can't be a benefit, and death can't be a need. On the contrary, the existence of life is the premise of his interest. Besides, death is an inevitable result, and people have no choice. Thus, if euthanasia is a right, then it is not the right to die, but the right to autonomy and personality [9].

Third, some problems of euthanasia in legal practice

(A) the spiritual origin of euthanasia legalization

1. Can euthanasia become a legal right?

Can euthanasia become a legal right? Just because there is no reasonable reason to restrict euthanasia, we can't think that euthanasia can become a legal right. Rights are based on the recognition of norms that reflect social will. In other words, not all interests can become rights. Rights are the unity of people's interests and the requirements of social norms, and the permission or recognition of people's individual will by the overall will of society. Euthanasia is a typical manifestation of human will. Some scholars describe euthanasia as the right to die. In fact, death is a kind of fate of human beings, an inescapable necessity, and cannot reflect human will, so it cannot be a right. Euthanasia is a reflection, restriction and decision on human existence. Specifically, first, euthanasia is a personal request, reflecting personal wishes. Second, euthanasia should conform to the norms and be recognized by the social will [10]. Only in this way can euthanasia become a right.

2. Conditions for euthanasia to become a legal right

Euthanasia must reflect the individual's will, which is certain, otherwise it is murder. This means that individuals who cannot express themselves and have no personal will are excluded from the discussion. As for the permission or recognition of the will of the whole society, first of all, it depends on whether it can be recognized and recognized by social moral customs. Obviously, in modern society, as we have shown above, euthanasia can exist as a moral right. At least in China, it can be recognized and accepted by the society. But as a moral right, euthanasia must be transformed into a legal right? This of course depends on several restrictive factors in the process of legalization. In the process of transforming due rights into legal rights through legislation, legislators are restricted by social objective factors, subjective factors and legal forms themselves. It is precisely because of the existence and inevitability of these restrictive factors that the existing legal rights cannot fully reproduce their due rights [1 1]. The so-called restriction of objective factors means that any due rights are generated from certain social and material living conditions. The objective factors restricting rights include a country's economic, political and cultural development level, natural conditions, national traditions and so on. Therefore, different times, different countries and different cultural traditions will have different opinions, so some due rights may be recognized and protected in a certain era and region, but not in another era and region [65438].

(2) Does China have the conditions for euthanasia legislation?

In China society, can euthanasia, as a proper right, be transformed into a legal right? We can compare it with Holland, where euthanasia is legalized. The legalization of euthanasia in the Netherlands has at least four favorable factors:

1. The medical service in the Netherlands is one of the highest in the world. More than 95% people have private medical insurance. Long-term recuperation is also covered by insurance, and it covers a small number of people without private insurance.

2. Palliative care has made great progress. Almost every hospital has pain control and palliative care centers. Compared with other countries, similar centers are rare and expensive.

During the Nazi occupation, only Dutch doctors did not participate in the Nazi "euthanasia" plan. This factor shows that the Dutch doctor-patient relationship has a tradition of high mutual trust.

Their family doctor system is very well implemented. Most patients have a long friendship with doctors.

Obviously, these conditions are far from being met in China. China is still a developing country, and the country has no ability to ensure that everyone can get better medical conditions. Many people don't want their relatives to spend more money, and they want to die when there is no hope of treatment. At present, China's medical security system is not perfect, especially in poor rural areas, because the basic medical insurance has not been established. Many people face a huge family economic crisis when they get a minor illness, and actively seeking a dead end is their best solution. At present, the medical level of hospitals in our country is not high, so it is necessary to reach a certain medical level and have certain medical conditions to confirm the dying people who cannot be saved medically. Finally, China has a vast territory, different medical levels in different regions, and many ethnic groups in China. The cultural background and customs of different nationalities are very different. Different levels of development of death civilization have different requirements and acceptance of euthanasia. It can be seen that the limitation of objective factors does not support the transformation of euthanasia from due rights to legal rights.

Fourthly, the legislative conception and conclusion of euthanasia.

(A) the legislative concept of euthanasia

Euthanasia is a very complicated issue, involving ethics, law and medicine. In contemporary society, in order to formulate policies and legislation, we must treat euthanasia on the basis of ethics and around the value of life, personal freedom and human rights protection. The best scene to discuss euthanasia is that the country's economy, legal system, medical security and civic concept have reached a certain developed level. The fundamental question is whether the patient's free will can be guaranteed on the basis of a high degree of material and spiritual civilization. Ethically speaking, it is not advisable to absolutely prohibit or completely open euthanasia. At present, our society does not have the ideal conditions to discuss euthanasia. From the legislative point of view, it is still necessary to create conditions. Among them, the most important thing is to strictly regulate the object scope, subject scope, implementation conditions, application procedures, examination procedures and operation procedures of euthanasia, and to clarify the criminal responsibility of euthanasia without authorization, the criminal responsibility of failing to perform or not performing euthanasia duties seriously, and the civil responsibility that should be borne.

Taking euthanasia as an example, the following conditions must be met:

1, the object of euthanasia must be a terminally ill patient with imminent death according to modern medicine and technology;

2. The purpose of euthanasia is to relieve or eliminate the pain of patients;

3. The patient's physical pain is unbearable for anyone;

4. Patients who have a clear meaning and can express consciousness must have their own sincere entrustment and commitment, and the entrustment and commitment are made before or when the behavior occurs. When the patient is unable to express himself, close relatives and others may not ask for it on his behalf, and doctors may not take the initiative to implement it;

5. Except euthanasia, there is no alternative way to alleviate or eliminate the pain;

6, should be implemented by doctors, others have no right to implement, and euthanasia must have the consent of three doctors, after the approval of the attending doctor;

7. The method of euthanasia must be ethical and considered appropriate.

(2) Conclusion

On May 9, 2006, Jinling Evening News reported such a news: "A 5-year-old child named Longlong in Nanjing was in a coma due to an accident. At the request of Longlong's father, Professor Chen Zhonghua, Dean of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and experts from the First Hospital of Southern Medical University conducted a consultation on Longlong and confirmed that Longlong was brain dead. Although Longlong can rely on a ventilator to breathe, the most important vital signs no longer exist. Longlong's father pulled out Longlong's ventilator with tears, euthanized Longlong, and donated several organs of Longlong, including his eyes, to four patients in great need, while Longlong's body was sent to Southeast University School of Medicine for medical research. Although the situation of Longlong is not complete euthanasia, it can be used as a good example to provide reference for euthanasia legislation.

In China, since euthanasia was publicly discussed in 1980s, both sides who support and oppose the legalization of euthanasia have their own words. Many scholars believe that the legalization of euthanasia is ethically reasonable, but the conditions for legislation are not yet mature. Although euthanasia is not legal in China, it must be admitted that the families of people who are seriously ill and have no possibility of assistance have objectively let them "die of natural causes" in China because they can't afford huge medical expenses, and stopped effective treatment for patients. How to ensure patients get effective treatment, at least to minimize their pain before death, so that they can spend their last days in peace and dignity is a realistic and urgent problem. In the case that the right to life and death is still controversial, the state can consider legislating first to give practical protection to the due rights of this special group in medical care and law.

References:

[1] tom jackson, health law litigation reporter. November [J] Human Rights, 2002, (5).

[2] Chu Hu Aizhi. American criminal law [M]. Beijing: Peking University Publishing House, 1996.

[3] Davies, Audberg. Applied ethics [M]. Oxford: Blackwell Press. Ltd., 2000

[4] Lin and Chen Ying. On the elements of "euthanasia" and moral conflict-based on the medical intervention in human life in a medical field [J]. Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition), 2002, (3).

Stone. On euthanasia legislation [J]. Law and Medicine, 1995, (2).

Li baozhen Euthanasia should be legislated. Chinese and foreign law, 1998, (1).

[7] Chen Jingjing. Ethical dilemma of euthanasia [J]. Frontier, 2002, (8).

[8] Zhao. Where is the legitimacy of the concept of human rights? -the fundamental significance of Kant's ethics to the concept of human rights (taking the right to life as an example) [J]. Forum on Political Science and Law, 2004, (5).

[9] Liu Sanmu, Wang Zaixiang. Discussion on some controversial issues of euthanasia [J]. Law Review, No.6, 2004.

[10] Jia Hongmei. Moral definition of legality and illegality of euthanasia [N]. Legal Daily, 1997-5-3(8).

[1 1] Zhu Peizhi. Euthanasia and its legislative thinking [J]. Science, Economy and Society, 2002, (1).

Lu Min. Legislative thinking on euthanasia [J]. Journal of Hainan University. Humanities and social sciences edition. 2002, ( 1).