Um "líknardráp" (en betra orð vantar)

Gríska orðið euthanasia merkir auð­veld­ur dauði og er víða not­að um það at­hœfi að stytta fólki ald­ur á sárs­auka­laus­an hátt, með eða án sam­­þykk­is þess, oft en ekki allt­af út af erf­ið­um eða ban­væn­um sjúk­dóm­um.

Þetta hef­ur á ís­lenzku ver­ið kall­að líkn­ar­dráp, sem ég finn fyrst í Morg­un­­blað­inu 1959, inn­an gæsa­lappa og haft eftir lækni úr SS-sveit­um naz­ista, sem bar af sér sak­ir í stríðs­glæpa­máli (orð­ið næst not­að 1975). Líkn­ar­dauði kem­ur fyr­ir í blað­inu 1961, þeg­ar lög­regl­an í Reykja­vík skaut illa særð­an sel (orð­ið næst not­að 1978). Heim­ild: tima­rit.is (orðaleit).

Íslenzk orðabók 1963 nefnir tvær merk­ing­ar á orð­inu líkn: 1) misk­unn, náð og 2) hjálp, hjúkr­un. Blogg­ar­an­um finnst orð­ið líkn­ar­dráp of já­kvætt, þeg­ar ræð­ir um hörmu­lega synd, og mundi gjarn­an sneiða hjá því, ef hann þekkti eða gæti lát­ið sér detta í hug snot­urt og gegn­sætt orð, ekki of langt, ann­að hvort hœfi­lega nei­kvætt eða í það minnsta hlut­laust. Hann lýs­ir eft­ir því. Þessi verkn­að­ur verð­ur enn meira á dag­skrá í fram­tíð­inni, ef marka má óheilla­þró­un í ná­læg­um löndum (í Hollandi er jafn­vel farið að drepa lít­il börn), og ástœðu­laust er með já­kvæðu orða­vali að auð­velda fram­gang hans.

Kardínálinn Franjo Seper birti 5. maí 1980 yf­ir­lýs­ingu um þetta mál, að boði Jó­hann­es­ar Páls II. páfa. Þar seg­ir með­al ann­ars [út­gáfa á ensku not­uð, sem marg­ir ættu að skilja]:

…By euthanasia is understood an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated. Euthanasia’s terms of re­ference, there­fore, are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used. It is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way per­mit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an in­curable dis­ease, or a person who is dying. Further­more, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or her­self or for an­other person en­trusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. nor can any authority legitimately re­commend or per­mit such an action. For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity. It may happen that, by reason of pro­longed and barely tolerable pain, for deeply personal or other reasons, people may be led to be­lieve that they can legitimately ask for death or ob­tain it for others. Although in these cases the guilt of the individual may be re­duced or com­pletely absent, never­the­less the error of judg­ment in­to which the con­science falls, per­haps in good faith, does not change the nature of this act of killing, which will always be in it­self some­thing to be re­jected. The pleas of gravely ill people who some­times ask for death are not to be under­stood as im­plying a true desire for euthanasia; in fact, it is almost always a case of an anguished plea for help and love. What a sick person needs, be­sides medical care, is love, the human and super­natural warmth with which the sick person can and ought to be surrounded by all those close to him or her, parents and children, doctors and nurses.

Kardínálinn vék næst að hugtakinu þjáning:

Death does not al­ways come in dramatic circum­stances after barely tolerable sufferings. Nor do we have to think only of extreme cases. Numerous testi­monies which con­firm one an­other lead one to the con­clusion that nature itself has made pro­vision to render more bearable at the moment of death separations that would be terribly pain­ful to a person in full health. Hence it is that a pro­longed ill­ness, advanced old age, or a state of loneli­ness or neglect can bring about psycho­logical con­ditions that facilitate the acceptance of death. Never­the­less the fact re­mains that death, often pre­ceded or accompanied by severe and pro­longed suffering, is some­thing which naturally causes people anguish. Physical suffering is certainly an un­avoidable element of the human con­dition; on the bio­logical level, it con­stitutes a warning of which no one de­nies the use­ful­ness; but, since it affects the human psycho­logical make­up, it often ex­ceeds its own bio­logical use­ful­ness and so can be­come so severe as to cause the desire to re­move it at any cost. According to Christian teaching, how­ever, suffering, especially suffering during the last moments of life, has a special place in God’s saving plan; it is in fact a sharing in Christ’s passion and a union with the re­deeming sacrifice which He offered in obedience to the Father’s will. There­fore, one must not be surprised if some Christians prefer to moderate their use of pain­killers, in order to accept voluntarily at least a part of their sufferings and thus associate them­selves in a con­scious way with the sufferings of Christ crucified (cf. Mt. 27:34). Never­the­less it would be im­prudent to im­pose a heroic way of acting as a general rule. On the contrary, human and Christian prudence suggest for the majority of sick people the use of medicines capable of alleviating or suppressing pain, even though these may cause as a secondary effect semi-consciousness and re­duced lucidity. As for those who are not in a state to express themselves, one can reasonably pre­sume that they wish to take these pain­killers, and have them ad­ministered according to the doctor’s advice. But the in­tensive use of pain­killers is not with­out difficulties, be­cause the pheno­menon of habituation generally makes it necessary to in­crease their dosage in order to main­tain their efficacy. At this point it is fitting to re­call a declaration by Pius XII, which re­tains its full force; in answer to a group of doctors who had put the question: "Is the suppression of pain and con­sciousness by the use of narcotics … per­mitted by religion and morality to the doctor and the patient (even at the approach of death and if one fore­sees that the use of narcotics will shorten life)?" the Pope said: "If no other means exist, and if, in the given cir­cum­stances, this does not pre­vent the carrying out of other religious and moral duties: Yes." In this case, of course, death is in no way in­tended or sought, even if the risk of it is reasonably taken; the in­tention is simply to re­lieve pain effectively, using for this purpose pain­killers available to medicine. How­ever, pain­killers that cause un­con­sciousness need special con­sideration. For a person not only has to be able to satisfy his or her moral duties and family obligations; he or she also has to pre­pare him­self or her­self with full con­scious­ness for meeting Christ. Thus Pius XII warns: "It is not right to deprive the dying person of con­scious­ness with­out a serious reason."

Kardínálinn skýrði nánar út álitamál við lækningar:

Today it is very important to protect, at the moment of death, both the dignity of the human person and the Christian con­cept of life, against a technological attitude that threatens to be­come an abuse. Thus some people speak of a "right to die," which is an expression that does not mean the right to pro­cure death either by one’s own hand or by means of some­one else, as one pleases, but rather the right to die peace­fully with human and Christian dignity. From this point of view, the use of thera­peutic means can some­times pose problems. In numerous cases, the com­plexity of the situation can be such as to cause doubts about the way ethical principles should be applied. In the final analysis, it per­tains to the con­science either of the sick person, or of those qualified to speak in the sick person’s name, or of the doctors, to de­cide, in the light of moral obligations and of the various aspects of the case. Every­one has the duty to care for his or her own health or to seek such care from others. Those whose task it is to care for the sick must do so con­scientiously and ad­minister the remedies that seem necessary or use­ful. How­ever, is it necessary in all circum­stances to have re­course to all possible remedies? In the past, moralists re­plied that one is never obliged to use "extra­ordinary" means. This re­ply, which as a principle still holds good, is per­haps less clear today, by reason of the im­precision of the term and the rapid progress made in the treat­ment of sick­ness. Thus some people pre­fer to speak of "pro­portionate" and "dis­proportionate" means. In any case, it will be possible to make a correct judg­ment as to the means by studying the type of treat­ment to be used, its de­gree of com­plexity or risk, its cost and the possibilities of using it, and com­paring these elements with the result that can be expected, taking into account the state of the sick person and his or her physical and moral re­sources. In order to facilitate the application of these general principles, the following clarifications can be added:

If there are no other sufficient remedies, it is per­mitted, with the patient’s con­sent, to have re­course to the means pro­vided by the most advanced medical techniques, even if these means are still at the experimental stage and are not with­out a certain risk. By accepting them, the patient can even show generosity in the service of humanity. 

It is also per­mitted, with the patient’s con­sent, to inter­rupt these means, where the results fall short of expectations. But for such a decision to be made, account will have to be taken of the reasonable wishes of the patient and the patient’s family, as also of the advice of the doctors who are specially competent in the matter. The latter may in particular judge that the invest­ment in instru­ments and personnel is dis­proportionate to the results fore­seen; they may also judge that the techniques applied impose on the patient strain or suffering out of pro­portion with the benefits which he or she may gain from such techniques.

It is also per­missible to make do with the normal means that medicine can offer. There­fore one can­not im­pose on any­one the obligation to have re­course to a technique which is already in use but which carries a risk or is burden­some. Such a re­fusal is not the equivalent of suicide; on the contrary, it should be con­sidered as an acceptance of the human condition, or a wish to avoid the application of a medical pro­cedure dis­proportionate to the results that can be expected, or a desire not to impose excessive expense on the family or the community. When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is per­mitted in con­science to take the de­cision to re­fuse forms of treat­ment that would only secure a pre­carious and burden­some pro­longation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not inter­rupted. In such circum­stances the doctor has no reason to re­proach him­self with failing to help the person in danger…

Margt hefur gerzt á 28 árum, síðan Franjo kardínáli Seper lauk við yfir­lýs­ing­una, og ekki er það allt fallegt. En krist­ið fólk get­ur beðið til Guðs, bæði út af þessu mál­efni og fyr­ir ein­stöku fólki, sem þjá­ist af al­var­leg­um veik­indum.

Með blogginu fylgir mynd af Hartheim-höllinni, ein­um þeirra staða, sem líkn­ar­dráp á börn­­um og full­­orðn­­um fóru fram, þeg­ar lækn­a­nefnd frá nazist­um áleit það fólk­inu fyrir beztu. Svo seg­ir að minnsta kosti í Wikipediu.

Sigurður Ragnarsson.

 

Last Gassing at Hartheim

View of Hartheim castle. Located near Linz, Austria, Hartheim castle was one of six hospitals and sanitoria in Germany and Austria in which the Nazi euthanasia program took place.

View of Hartheim castle. Located near Linz, Austria, Hartheim castle was one of six hospitals and sanitoria in Germany and Austria in which the Nazi euthanasia program took place. —National Archives and Records Administration

DECEMBER 11, 1944

At Hartheim, German authorities carry out the last gassing of inmates.

Under SS guard, Mauthausen prisoners dismantled the killing facility.  Hartheim was one of six gassing installations for adults established as part of the "euthanasia" program. 
Between April 1940 and December 1944, the Germans killed approximately  30,000 individuals, the majority of them mentally and physically disabled patients.  Alongside "euthanasia" victims, some 6,000 prisoners from Mauthausen, Gusen, and Dachau were also gassed at the facility.


mbl.is Vilja heimila líknardauða þegar fólk hefur „lokið lífi sínu“
Tilkynna um óviðeigandi tengingu við frétt

« Síðasta færsla | Næsta færsla »

Athugasemdir

1 Smámynd: Benedikt V. Warén

Starfslokasamningur, þegar einhver ákveður að hætta að vinna og samið er við vinnuveitanda um starfslok.

Lífslokasamningur, þegar einhver ákveður að lifa ekki lengur og semur við sérfróðan um að hjálpa sér að framkvæma það.

Benedikt V. Warén, 26.6.2019 kl. 20:58

Bæta við athugasemd

Ekki er lengur hægt að skrifa athugasemdir við færsluna, þar sem tímamörk á athugasemdir eru liðin.

Um bloggið

Kristinn þjóðarflokk?

Höfundur

Kristin stjórnmálasamtök
Kristin stjórnmálasamtök

Málfundafélag Athugasemdir birtast ekki sjálfkrafa né strax og eru því aðeins samþykktar að þær fari ekki langt út fyrir efni blogggreinar, séu orðaðar kurteislega og feli ekki í sér árás á kristna trú og söfnuði né heldur lögbrot eða grófar persónuárásir eða hæpnar fullyrðingar án nafnbirtingar. Áskiljum okkur rétt til að útiloka menn kunna að árásum á kristindóm og kirkju. Og skrifið undir fullu nafni! - Skoðið eftirfarandi neðar í þessum dálki: TENGLAR – Yfirlit fyrri greina. For info. in English on this CHRISTIAN POLITICAL MOVEMENT, see HERE.

Bloggvinir

Nóv. 2019
S M Þ M F F L
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Eldri færslur

Nýjustu myndir

  • jesus kristur 1301705
  • 13wochen
  • 19d7v3r18h3r1
  • GRHI20UO
  • Pasted Graphic
  • Jón Valur Jensson, maí 2016
  • Steindór Sigursteinsson
  • 1184796 230094733815535 1832625948 n
  • In my office 004
  • ...20zierniete

Heimsóknir

Flettingar

  • Í dag (16.11.): 18
  • Sl. sólarhring: 18
  • Sl. viku: 750
  • Frá upphafi: 469974

Annað

  • Innlit í dag: 16
  • Innlit sl. viku: 672
  • Gestir í dag: 16
  • IP-tölur í dag: 16

Uppfært á 3 mín. fresti.
Skýringar

Innskráning

Ath. Vinsamlegast kveikið á Javascript til að hefja innskráningu.

Hafðu samband