Those who promote this last, fatal escape as a “right” should remember that such a “right” may quickly become an expectation and, finally even a “duty” to die.

Good afternoon, dear ladies & gentlemen! It’s 2 o’clock and as always at this time I’m Paula Ignitch, a host of the programm “fight a duel” (['djuːəl]) on the air (with you).

So the topic of our today duel is as usual concerns an urgent and very controversial problem for all the world and each taken separately - Euthanasia. And a matter of issue is the statement against assisted suicide by members of Michigan’s Religuous Leaders Forum, a group of Christian, Jewish & Muslim (['muzlɪm]) leaders:

Mull it over

Those who promote this last, fatal escape as a “right” should remember that such a “right” may quickly become an expectation and, finally even a “duty” to die.

"Many people worry that if voluntary euthanasia were to become legal, it would not be long before involuntary euthanasia would start to happen…

Because, to their mind, it is virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia are truly voluntary and that any liberalisation of the law in any country can not be abused.

Some people are also concerned that vulnerable people - the elderly, lonely, sick or distressed - would feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death.

This is called the slippery slope argument. In general form it says that if we allow something relatively harmless today, we may start a trend that results in something currently unthinkable becoming accepted.

Those who oppose this argument say that properly drafted legislation can draw a firm barrier across the slippery slope.

Who knows, on which side there is a greater deal of truth. May be today we managed to ind it out)

Well… It was a little preface to the topic. And now let me introduce our today opponents. The first guest, who challenges to a duel is………………..

And another who accepts a challenge is

So Let’s begin. And I give ……………….. the floor.

(Вопросы тому, кто за эвтаназию)

??? If we change the law and accept voluntary euthanasia, we will not be able to keep it under control. Can you disprove this almost fact?

• Proponents of euthanasia say: It’s not a fact at all. Euthanasia would never be legalised without proper regulation and control mechanisms in place

??? And what about the statement, that Doctors may soon start killing people without bothering with their permission.

• Proponents say: There is a huge difference between killing people who ask for death under appropriate circumstances, and killing people without their permission

• Very few people are so lacking in moral understanding that they would ignore this distinction

• Very few people are so lacking in intellect that they can't make the distinction above

• Any doctor who would ignore this distinction probably wouldn't worry about the law anyway

??? Health care costs will lead to doctors killing patients to save money or free up beds:

• Proponents say: The main reason some doctors support voluntary euthanasia is because they believe that they should respect their patients' right to be treated as autonomous human beings

• That is, when doctors are in favour of euthanasia it's because they want to respect the wishes of their patients

• So doctors are unlikely to kill people without their permission because that contradicts the whole motivation for allowing voluntary euthanasia

• But cost-conscious doctors are more likely to honour their patients' requests for death

• A 1998 study found that doctors who are cost-conscious and 'practice resource-conserving medicine' are significantly more likely to write a lethal prescription for terminally-ill patients [Arch. Intern. Med., 5/11/98, p. 974]

• This suggests that medical costs do influence doctors' opinions in this area of medical ethics

??? The Nazis engaged in massive programmes of involuntary euthanasia, so we shouldn't place our trust in the good moral sense of doctors.

• Proponents say: The Nazis are not a useful moral example, because their actions are almost universally regarded as both criminal and morally wrong

• The Nazis embarked on invountary euthanasia as a deliberate political act - they didn't slip into it from voluntary euthanasia (although at first they did pretend it was for the benefit of the patient)

• What the Nazis did wasn't euthanasia by even the widest definition, it was the use of murder to get rid of people they disapproved of

• The universal horror at Nazi euthanasia demonstrates that almost everyone can make the distinction between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia

• The example of the Nazis has made people more sensitive to the dangers of involuntary euthanasia

??? Allowing voluntary euthanasia makes it easier to commit murder, since the perpetrators can disguise it as active voluntary euthanasia.

• Proponents say: The law is able to deal with the possibility of self-defence or suicide being used as disguises for murder. It will thus be able to deal with this case equally well

• To dress murder up as euthanasia will involve medical co-operation. The need for a conspiracy will make it an unattractive option

Many are needlessly condemned to suffering by the chief anti-euthanasia argument: that murder might lurk under the cloak of kindness.

(вопросы для того, кто против)

или этот или след вопрос (на выбор)??????? With legalized euthanasia, wouldn't patients die peacefully, surrounded by their families and doctors, instead of being suffocated by plastic bags or gassed with carbon monoxide as happens now?

Answer: No. Campaigners for euthanasia often say that, but it's not true.

In the two places where laws were passed to allow euthanasia, it was clear that legalizing euthanasia only legitimizes the use of plastic bags and carbon monoxide to kill vulnerable people.

For example, immediately following the passage of Oregon's Measure 16, those who had said that it would enable people to die peacefully with pills did an immediate about face and admitted that it would permit the types of activities carried out by Jack Kevorkian. They also said that, if pills were used, a plastic bag should also be used to ensure death.

A similar situation occurred in Australia's Northern Territory where proponents of euthanasia painted pictures of a calm, peaceful death with the patient surrounded by loved ones.

When guidelines for the Australian measure (which has now been repealed) were written after its passage, it was acknowledged that carbon monoxide gas would be permitted. It was recommended that, if drugs were used for the euthanasia death, family members should be warned that they may wish to leave the room when the patient is being killed since the death may be very unpleasant to observe. (Lethal injections often cause violent convulsions and muscle spasms.)

A particularly chilling method of ending a patient's life was proposed by Dr. Philip Nitschke, a leading Australian euthanasia activist, when he announced that he had developed a computer program for euthanasia so that doctors could remove themselves from the actual death scene.

(или этот или предыдущий)15. Isn't euthanasia sometimes the only way to relieve excruciating pain?

Answer: Quite the contrary. Euthanasia activists exploit the natural fear people have of suffering and dying, and often imply that when cure is no longer likely, there are only two alternatives: euthanasia or unbearable pain.

For example, an official of Choice in Dying, a right-to-die organization, said refusing to permit euthanasia "would, in fact, be to abandon the patient to a horrifying death."

Such an irresponsible statement fails to note that virtually all pain can be eliminated and that -- in those rare cases where it can't be eliminated -- it can still be reduced significantly if proper treatment is provided.

It is a national and international scandal that so many people do not get adequate pain control. But killing is not the answer to that scandal. The solution is to mandate better education of health care professionals on these crucial issues, to expand access to health care, and to inform patients about their rights as consumers.

Everyone -- whether it be a person with a life-threatening illness or a chronic condition -- has the right to pain relief. With modern advances in pain control, no patient should ever be in excruciating pain. However, most doctors have never had a course in pain management so they're unaware of what to do.

If a patient who is under a doctor's care is in excruciating pain, there's definitely a need to find a different doctor. But that doctor should be one who will control the pain, not one who will kill the patient.

There are board certified specialists in pain management who will not only help alleviate physical pain but are skilled in providing necessary support to deal with emotional suffering and depression that often accompanies physical pain.