| Abstract |
Euthanasia is defined as the method of causing death painlessly with the aim of shortening the patient's agony who is suffering from a painful and terminal disease. Compassion, love and respect for human dignity are considered motives for the practice of Euthanasia. Euthanasia can be distinguished in two basic types: A) Active Euthanasia, which is the deliberate course of action taken for the determination of an individual's life and can be distinguished into 'Voluntary' and 'Non-voluntary' and B) Passive Euthanasia, which occurs either a) by omission or neglect of curative care or treatment or b) by withdrawal of curative treatment. The purpose of this Doctorate's dissertation is the study at a national and international level of the serious issue of practicing or not Euthanasia on human beings, the penal treatment from the Greek Legislation and the presentation of a new speculation in the Greek reality. People have been familiar with Euthanasia since the ancient times. The issue of Euthanasia is medical, social, religious and philosophical. While practicing medicine a physician is often faced with the dilemma of either keeping an individual alive who is suffering from an incurable and poignant disease or is in a state of 'plant' not being able to survive without a load of life-support machines or putting an end to a life full of extreme pain and no hope by performing Euthanasia. The legitimate commodity of life is protected in article 5, paragraph 2 of the Greek Constitution. In the Greek Penal Law there is a considerable number of articles that refer to the safeguarding of life. The Greek Legislation forbids any form of Euthanasia and authorizes the physician to remove the respirator from the patient after death has been confirmed. The legislations of most countries do not permit the practice of Euthanasia except for the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, France, Australia, Japan and the State of Oregon, USA which accept the practice of Euthanasia on condition that certain guidelines that have been laid down are followed. In Greece there should be taken the initiative by lawmaker's and medical people to attempt a revision of the current legislation and the enactment of new laws which will be attuned to reality. These new laws will deal with the issue realistically, while laying down the observance of strict guidelines and rules so that the safeguarding of human beings in any way. Alongside with the institution of these laws the state should set up not only ad hoc committees but also ad hoc state mechanics which will strictly regulate the correct application and observance of these laws. Below are proposed the following in greater detail: 1) Concerning the practice of Active Euthanasia. In the sense of intentional action for the termination of an individual's life. The above ought to be viewed as an act which is to be condemmed by law and order as well as by the legislator. Its practice is not to be recommended in either of the forms known, that is, the Voluntary Active Euthanasia or the Non-Voluntary Active Euthanasia, for now matter how right the pro-Active Euthanasia guidelines laid down by the Legislator are, there will always the danger that Active Euthanasia will be practiced even in cases of patients that is unacceptable. More specifically: a) As regards Voluntary Active Euthanasia, there is a possibility that the patient who wishes to practice it will not have reacted this ultimate point because of severe incurable disease with intolerable pain but due to psychological problems such as depression, disappointment ect. In this case the termination of this individual's life will be a wrongful act. This patient is in need of another kind of medical treatment and not the administration of a lethal substance which the patient will receive by themselves in order to terminate their lives. b) As far as the practice of Non-Voluntary Active Euthanasia is concerned, there will always be the danger lurking of wrong evaluation of the patient's condition on the part of the medical staff and of action taken by a relative or friend of the patient's who has ulterior motives, in case this person is benefited financially or in any other way with the 'killing' of the patient by performing Non-Voluntary Active Euthanasia. 2) Concerning the practice of Passive Euthanasia. a) In the sense of omission of curative care. This shall be considered an objectionable act, because on the base of the oath taken by a doctor and on the grounds of humanity or compassion that ought to mark every individual's behaviour towards our fellow people, the physician's may not intentionally omit any kinds of remedial treatment if there are any and can help a severely diseased fellow man effectually. b) In the sense of withdrawing curative care. This type of passive Euthanasia is recommented to be practided when every known-to-this-day remedy has been administered to the patient by the physicians, and yet: - Either the patient continues to be in a state of 'plant' with no hope of improvement or definite cure. - Or they are in the last stage of an incurable disease without any hope of cure or relief from intolerable pain with the means that modern medicine commands and they explicitly and persistently demand it. - Or they are in a grave condition supported by machines with no hope of recovery. In the first and the third cases the attendant doctor and patient's family will assume responsibility for deciding to perform Passive Euthanasia. It goes without saying that before performing Passive Euthanasia, it must also be taken into consideration if the patient had expressed such a wish before he lapsed into the state of 'plant'. Moreover the attendant doctor shall follow certain rules and procedures as laid down by the Greek State regarding the practice of this form of Passive Euthanasia. In the second case the patient themselves bears the responsibility and their wish for withdrawal of remedial care must be respected by the attendant doctors. The rules that the attendant doctor should abide by could be: 1) The patient should be in the final stage of an incurable disease and suffer from intolerable physical pain or be in a long-drawn-out state of 'plant' without any prospect of improvement. 2) The attendant doctor should keep the patient latter informed of the progress of the patient's disease-if he/she is able to communicate with his/her doctor- and jointly reach the conclusion that there is no other reasonable solution. 3) All possible alternative solutions of remedial care should have run out. 4) The request for performing Passive Euthanasia with the withdrawal of remedial care will have to be expressed by the patient of their own free will verbally or in writing. 5) The resolution for the seriousness of the patient's condition, due to which Passive Euthanasia could be performed by withdrawing remedial care should not be made by only one doctor. The patient's examination by other doctors should be demanded. These doctors are recommended to be a general practitioner and a psychiatrist. 6) There should be given plenty of time to the patient to reflect their decision in case the patient is able to think and make logical decisions. 7) Only the patient's attendant doctor should have the responsibility for practicing Passive Euthanasia on his patient by withdrawing remedial care, on condition that they follow the rules and the laws governing Euthanasia and laid down by the Greek State. The Greek State ought to designate ad hoc Committees to each Prefecture or district to regulate the observance of the law and the above and/or further criteria for Euthanasia wich will have been laid down; the above committees are to have their seats within the District Hospitals in each Prefecture. The Ministry of Health should to be the Supreme Authority which will supervise these qualified state services in each prefecture. These ad hoc committees should be made up of delegates of the Medical, Justicial and Legal community in each prefecture as well as of the local society-that is they will be in the form of a council. These delegates will be elected radomly by the adult citizens of each Prefecture as a body in such a way that the sample of the delegates of the society will be the representative as possible. As regards the delegates of the Justicial and Legal community they should be chosen by draw from the registered members in the rolls of the Medical Profession and Legal Body of each Prefecture so that there is impartiality and representativeness. The attendant doctor, who will perform Passive Euthanasia by withdrawing remedial care, will have to draw up a report adressed to the ad hoc State Services in each Prefecture after he has observed all the Greek State. If the qualified state services ascertain that the attentand doctor acted lawfully they will assent to the remaining procedures. But if they ascertain that the attendant doctor did not observe the law, subsequently they will indict them to the Local Court to be or not to be held culpable. On the other hand, because up to this day in Greece the practice of Euthanasia has not been enacted-and by the time the Greek State decides to enact laws on it, either in accordance with the above propositions or by the adoption of other relevant criteria it is vital that the answer be given to all doctors who are faces with the problem and at any time, due to existing gap in Greek Legislation they put the forward question: "What am I going ti do in my clinic now?". A reply to the above question will be given by the erforcement of the Legislation and Medical Etiquette that have been enacted and are in effect concerning this issue today. However, in the event of some rare critical cases if their questioning is not dealt with, the answer should be sought in the regular Greek Justice, and this can be done if either the patient themselves or their relatives or their attendant doctor themselves appeals to it; even via the Public Prosecutor by means of summary procedure such as this of "Voluntary Jurisdiction" whereby the Court will judge the case of a specific patient clearly and fully. The court will judge it impartially, according to the rules of law in force, the actual invidents, the specialist's views, the social and moral orser and the respect with which justice regards human life and dignity. This procedure is important on the grounds that, in addition to the findings that the Court itself will come up with, it can order any measure to be taken appropriate for the real facts which lead to the protection of the parts interested or the legitimate relation or the general social interest; and, the decision made will have validity and will contain authoritative judgement. However, the provisions in effect of the Chapter about Voluntary Jurisdiction, of the Code of Civil Procedure do not incluse the resolve to the problem of Euthanasia, that is, there is not provision in the chapter about Voluntary Jurisdiction declaring that the regular Civil Courts will resolve the problem by implementing the specific provisions, because of the above it is necessary that the resolution to this problem be specifically legislated, thus supplementing the Cose of Civil Procedure concerning the provisions specified, which has already occurred to this settlement of other cases such as the case of the amerdment of paragraph 3 of the 740 article of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Voluntary Jurisdiction') which included settlements for the involuntary medical attendance of a patient (article 39 of the 2447/1996 Act).
|
Η προβληματική της ευθανασίας
