Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The desire to die does not arise without a reason. If a person is happy, he will not kill himself. Therefore, it is necessary to eliminate not the effect, but the cause. If a person wants to kill himself, he just needs to be helped to become happy. In the case of conditionally incurable patients-for them, the desire to die arises because of the suffering caused by the disease. Man is a social being. It sets the rights to be the same for everyone. If euthanasia is allowed, harmful social factors will appear. The suffering of one person, if it is visible, does not pass without a trace, it encourages society to take reactionary measures. In the case of terminally ill people, this reaction is the invention of harmless painkillers, the invention of new drugs and treatments, the development of palliative medicine, the invention of new ways to improve the human body. Allowing euthanasia for society is an admission of defeat in the fight against the problem. If euthanasia is allowed, why develop further, spend time and effort to come up with new solutions, if you can easily stop everything. Therefore, people who are ill should not try to die, but try to communicate their pain to society. Yell with all your might: “it hurts me!”. So that society responds. Devote the short rest of your life to active social activities in order to do everything possible so that people in the future will not be hurt as much.
And who deprived you of this right? Man has it by nature. Anyone can drown themselves, hang themselves, or jump off a roof if they dare and have the guts.�
You may be referring to euthanasia, but this is not the right to die, but the right to use the help of a doctor to die quickly, painlessly and surely with the help of certain medications and procedures. There are a lot of ethical and legal problems associated with this, which is why euthanasia is allowed only in a few countries. I am sure that the number of such countries will continue to grow.
Obviously, the answer to this question depends on who owns a person's life. And yet to think that life belongs to the person himself is a vulgar simplification. Man is not self-generated out of nothing. Someone gives it life. And in the future, he does not exist alone, but among other people. Humans are social animals. Over the course of life, a person gradually becomes entwined in a complex pattern of a wide variety of relationships with other people. And these other people are often very dependent on him. Thus, a person, as it were, is responsible for them. He tamed them, using all sorts of special human techniques. And his life, therefore, is now partly theirs. He can't just end it by leaving them to fend for themselves, unless he's a scum. However, if a person does not have such connections and there are no people in the world for whom he should be responsible, then his life belongs to him. If he's gone, no one will notice.
I believe that everyone has the right to consciously give up life and die. But society takes away this right from people and doctors save many suicides from dying against their will. I think that society is not right…
On natural death-it is waiting for everyone, unless something happens. It's not something that doesn't matter, it's a duty, you can even say that.�
On handwritten-has.�
To die at the hands of another person is not about the right. This is prohibited by the laws of other countries. At the same time, there are exceptions, for example, euthanasia, or allowing another (for example, a loved one) person to kill you, depending on the circumstances (a bunch of factors actually). But the latter is also prohibited by law.
And if we talk about the war, then this is a more philosophical question, and it should be considered separately.
We may not be born, but we cannot not die. Therefore, death is not a right, but a duty. And established not by individual outstanding minds of mankind, but by nature itself.�
Since a person is constantly trying to take nature under control, it is quite logical for a responsible person to control the process of his death as an integral part of life.�
In practice, in Russia, for example, the patient has no right to refuse resuscitation, the doctor is obliged to carry it out if the patient's life is threatened, even if in the end the person will remain not just a vegetable, but also with unbearable pain. If he shows humanity and allows the patient to die a natural death, there will be a trial and possibly even criminal prosecution.
“A Marine has no right to die because he is the property of the US Armed Forces”(c)
ultimately, this is a question, the answer to which depends on the concept of the first cause of being: either a random evolution of life, in which everything accidentally appeared and everything disappears in non-existence and everything is essentially meaningless from the point of view of eternity, or man was created by God for some purpose and you need to understand this goal, fulfill it, and so on. And since you did not give birth to yourself , you cannot kill yourself, that is, you can kill yourself, but this will most likely be a violation of the goal given by God for a person and for this there may be a punishment in the future. I wish you all the best.
The right to die is not provided for in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but it is not prohibited by a separate law. At the same time, the Constitution mentions the duties of a citizen, the performance of which may lead to death or profound disability, for example, the defense of the Fatherland. To die in battle defending the Motherland is an honor, but to allow a survivor, but left disabled, to voluntarily stop the torment, it is impossible. A contradiction, however.
the right to life, as well as to death, is given to us by the very fact of our very existence. just because there is no other way. how we manage these rights is another matter. after all, rights also impose obligations. when we exercise the right to live, we are obliged to live it, but if this obligation is burdensome for us, we have the right to refuse it, because it is imposed on us, without our prior consent.