P C Jersild simplifies in his letter to the editor on the DN View, the problem with active euthanasia, and only see the benefits in dödshjälpen. Sven Román, however, the reasoning in his answers on the basis of the fundamental principle that applies to all medical measures, namely, the balance between risk and benefit.
Sven Román is right when he writes that a new drug would never get approved if the risk of death would correspond to the risk it would be to give active euthanasia the wrong reasons.
another principle difference between the two doctors ‘ ways of thinking about active euthanasia is that the P C Jersild assumes that it is human rights that any other man should take the life of them. Sven Román parts certainly P C Jersilds thoughts that every man has the right to decide over their own death, but that this is not the same as that you have the right to demand active euthanasia from another human being.
that euthanasia is ”a medborgarfråga”, but it simplifies the ethical dilemma when he unilaterally deleted from the human right to decide over his life and his death and neglects the fact that active euthanasia includes a different another person’s obligations under the contract they entered into their profession. To require the services of a occupational group to apply a measure that active euthanasia when you know that the risks are unacceptably high in relation to benefits is unethical.
We live in a time where in many ways, we avoid thoughts and feelings about death because our lifestyles are distancing us from life’s limitations. When I recently read ”the Man in the woods”, the biography of Vilhelm Moberg’s the emigrants series by Jens Liljestrand, I learned a lot about Moberg’s thoughts about life and death.
There is a section in the novel ”Your time on earth” by Moberg, which is precisely about this. ”There is a treason, which can not be forgiven, ( … ), that I commit against the forces that are me given. I have abused them?” And a few lines further down. ”But I’m just one of the countless, who have not attained what they had wanted with his life. And there is only one rescue to pursue: The force required to I shall find me in it”.
and his own life is worth to learn with regard to the discussion about active euthanasia. When Moberg ended his life, he did it on his own, when he was 74 years old.
Jens Liljestrand write about it in a biography so that I as a reader can understand the circumstances that led to Moberg’s decision. Moberg does not include anyone else in their suicide.
There is a quote by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, which I think is relevant in the discussion of active euthanasia: ”the Security that the thought of death or suicide, gives leads the tormented and sömnlöse through many a bad night.”
a typical tendency to engage in wishful thinking when we do not want to know of the realities of life. There are a variety of ways to behave as a result of wishful thinking. And the risk that active euthanasia would be based on a decision taken on the basis of a self-deceiving wishful thinking is just too big, I think.
