Euthanasia: legalization cannot be resisted. International Student Science Bulletin Essay on euthanasia for or against

Essay on the topic of:

Euthanasia: for or against?

student group No. 3881

Ryabkova Ivana

Saint Petersburg 2010

To start, some information:

Evtaná zia(or euthanasia) (Greek ευ- “good” + θάνατος “death”) the practice of terminating (or shortening) the life of a person suffering from an incurable disease, experiencing unbearable suffering, satisfying a request without medical indications in a painless or minimally painful form in order to end suffering .

Distinguish between active and passive euthanasia.

With passive euthanasia, the provision of medical care, life-sustaining treatment is stopped, which accelerates the onset of natural death. But most often, when they talk about euthanasia, they mean active euthanasia, which is understood as the introduction of any medicinal substances to a dying person, which entails a quick and painless onset of death.

In active euthanasia, the following forms are distinguished:

1. "Mercy killing" occurs when relatives or the doctor himself, seeing the excruciating suffering of a hopelessly ill person and being unable to eliminate them, inject or inject him with an anesthetic, resulting in a quick and painless death. The question of the consent of the patient in this case is not raised at all, since he is not able to express his will.

2. The second form of active euthanasia - suicide, assisted by a doctor, occurs with the consent of the patient, the doctor only helps him to end his life.

3. The third form - actually active euthanasia - occurs without the help of a doctor. The patient himself turns on the device, which leads him to a quick and painless death, as if laying hands on himself.

Thus, the essence of the problem of euthanasia lies in the deliberate infliction of death by a doctor on a patient out of compassion or at the request of the dying person or his relatives.

What about my personal opinion on this matter,

“I believe that Euthanasia should not be banned because there are cases when it is simply necessary, you cannot doom the patient to unbearable suffering and pain in the hope of the so-called “miraculous recovery”, although you should not back down and lose hope in any case, no doubt, it is very necessary. an experienced doctor who will understand where is that fine line after the crime of which the question of Euthanasia should be open. I especially consider it difficult cases when the patient cannot make decisions soberly or is unconscious, then this difficult decision passes to the relatives of the patient, and no matter how difficult it is, I think that it would be more selfish to leave a person to die in suffering than to resort to to Euthanasia. … This issue needs to be taken very seriously, as now often in our modern healthcare facilities there are unqualified doctors, many of whom cannot be trusted with the treatment of minor diseases, not like this issue.”

List of used literature

1. Site "Meddd.ru" - full link http://meddd.ru/bioetika/bioetika-nauka/evtanaziya-za-i-protiv.html
2. Website "Wikipedia.ru" - full link http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia.html

Northern State Medical University
Department of secondary vocational education
Essay
Euthanasia for and against.

Completed by: Zakharova M.S., student of OSPO LD
Lecturer: Shishkina G.P., teacher of OSPO

Arkhangelsk 2015
For some, death is punishment
For others, a gift
For many, it's a blessing.
Seneca
For many years, the topic of euthanasia has been controversial in society. Attention to the problem of euthanasia has increased with the development of social progress, and in particular, technology to support the life of seriously ill people. In my opinion, the relevance of this topic can hardly be overestimated, firstly, due to the fact that it is connected with the most precious thing a person has - with his life, and secondly -because of little study of this problem. Initially, having chosen the topic of euthanasia, I was deeply convinced that such a practice is simply necessary for our society. However, having considered all the arguments that I could find, I had to change my point of view and admit that this issue is not so simple. To begin with, consider the term "euthanasia" itself. Euthanasia (Greek ευ- “good” + θάνατος “death”) is the practice of terminating (or shortening) the life of a person suffering from an incurable disease, experiencing unbearable suffering, satisfying a request without medical indications in a painless or minimally painful form in order to end suffering. For the first time this term was introduced by the English philosopher, historian, politician Francis Bacon. There are two main types of euthanasia: passive euthanasia (intentional cessation of maintenance therapy by doctors) and active euthanasia (administration of medications to a dying person or other actions that entail a quick and painless death). Active euthanasia often includes suicide with medical assistance (providing the patient, at his request, with life-shortening drugs). In addition, it is necessary to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is carried out at the request of the patient or with prior consent. Involuntary euthanasia is carried out without the consent of the patient, usually in an unconscious state. It is made on the basis of the decision of relatives, guardians, etc.
Currently, lawyers, physicians, and the entire modern society are concerned about a number of questions, the answers to which have not yet been found. Did a person have the right to dispose of his life and completely abandon it by turning to a medical worker with a request to stop treatment in the event of a life-threatening disease or condition? If the patient has the right to this, then can the doctor, whose profession obliges him to fight the disease to the end, to promote life, not to interrupt it, to satisfy the request of the patient? Is it legitimate and humane to refuse a hopelessly ill person's request to end his suffering once and for all? And will such a refusal be regarded as the application to a person of torture, violence, cruel or degrading treatment, prohibited by international law and the national law of many modern states? The controversy does not fade away around this topic, and therefore I chose it for my creative work. I want to understand, if possible, all the pros and cons, to determine how I still feel about euthanasia.
The intentional killing of an innocent is always a moral evil. Euthanasia is the intentional killing of an innocent person. So euthanasia is a moral evil. Supporters of euthanasia may appeal to the fact that the above inference implies a distinction between justified and unjustified killings. On what basis is this distinction made? If some types of killing are justified, why can't voluntary euthanasia be justified in at least some circumstances? As you know, two kinds of killing are accepted by even many of the most zealous opponents of euthanasia - self-defense and punishment. None of them are unfair....

Introduction 3
My attitude towards euthanasia 4
Conclusion 7
List of sources used 9
...

Before arguing my attitude towards euthanasia, for a deeper understanding of its essence, I would like to take a closer look at its main forms.
So, in active euthanasia, it is customary to distinguish between the following main forms:
1. So to speak, "mercy killing" - is carried out in those cases when a doctor or relatives, observing the long and painful suffering of a hopelessly ill person, not being able to improve or correct anything, introduce a special drug, as a result of which quick and painless death. In such cases, quite often the question of the patient's consent is not even put on the agenda, for the reason that the latter is simply not able to express his will.
2. The second form of active euthanasia is, in fact, suicide, in which the doctor acts as an assistant. It is carried out, of course, with the consent of the patient.

Introduction

Euthanasia is understood as the practice of terminating (or shortening) the life of a person who suffers from an incurable disease, experiencing unbearable suffering; satisfaction of his request in a minimally painful or painless form in order to end suffering.
There are two main types of euthanasia - active and passive. In the case of passive euthanasia, the provision of medical care, as well as life-sustaining treatment, is gradually discontinued. In simple words- the "arrival" of natural death is simply accelerated.
At the same time, when they talk about euthanasia, in most cases they mean its active form, when it means the introduction of certain medicines, which are designed to cause a painless and quick "shortening of life".
Questions related to euthanasia have long been of concern to the public and politicians in many countries. Euthanasia is a subject of always heated discussions, and at the same time, research by specialists from various fields of knowledge.

Fragment of the work for review

It is carried out, of course, with the consent of the patient.3. The third form is active euthanasia, similar to the previous form, but carried out without the help of a doctor. In our country, all existing forms of euthanasia are currently prohibited by law. Thus, Russian legislation clearly states that medical personnel are prohibited from euthanasia of patients, regardless of the patient's requests to hasten his death. This applies to any means or actions, in particular, the interruption of a set of measures to maintain the patient's life. Moreover, persons who deliberately induce the patient to euthanasia and (or) carry out it are criminally liable. Nevertheless, domestic legislation, as you know, can hardly be called perfect. So, in the case of euthanasia, the legislator simply did not take into account the fundamental differences in its forms - active and passive. Accordingly, in domestic medical practice, a passive form of euthanasia is widespread. As you know, severe pain can often be the reason for the patient's insistent request to hasten the arrival of death. In this case, in my opinion, the doctor needs to take a very balanced approach to this issue and try to resist such a radical solution to the problem, namely, to offer an alternative - a rich selection of painkillers. A completely different situation is when, for example, a seriously ill patient has been in a coma for a long time, his consciousness is irretrievably lost, but at the same time, modern advanced technologies in medicine make it possible to carry out life-sustaining treatment. In this case, the question of the rationality of the choice is also on the agenda. As for my subjective opinion on this issue, I believe that euthanasia should not be banned, and it is also necessary to objectively regulate the legislation on this issue, study the progressive experience of foreign countries, etc. .d. As you know, there are cases when euthanasia is simply necessary, and therefore it is impossible to condemn the patient to unbearable torment in the hope of a "miracle", the probability of which is close to zero. At the same time, in no case should one lose hope and retreat, as this is inhumane and immoral. Of course, experienced doctors are needed who are able to determine that fine line, after the crime of which it is advisable to ask about euthanasia. In my opinion, those cases are the most difficult when the patient is no longer able to make any decisions, since he has been unconscious for a long time. It was then that the entire burden of the decision being made falls on the next of kin of the patient. In my opinion, it is much more selfish to leave a person to die in hellish torments, at a time when there is an opportunity, albeit extremely painful, but such a necessary way out of a bitter situation. This question is quite complex and always requires a volitional decision, both on the part of the patient’s relatives, and on the part of the patient himself and his doctors. In practice, euthanasia is carried out in the Russian Federation, but in a latent, hidden form, as confirmed by anonymous surveys of doctors.

Bibliography

List of sources used

1. Akopov V. I. Ethical, legal and medical problems of euthanasia // Medical Law and Ethics, 2012. - 1. - P. 47-55;
2. Dmitriev Yu. A., Shleneva E. V. Human rights in Russian Federation for the implementation of euthanasia // State and Law, 2012. - 11. - P. 52-59
3. Rybin V. A. Euthanasia. The medicine. Culture: Philosophical Foundations of the Modern Socio-Cultural Crisis in the Medical and Anthropological Aspect. 2012.
4. “Should euthanasia be legalized?” Economist Encyclopedia: Portal [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://slon.ru/calendar/event/859480
5. Site "Wikipedia.ru" [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia.html
6. Scientific electronic library [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://www.alleng.ru
7. Scientific electronic library "Cyberleninka" [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://cyberleninka.ru

Please carefully study the content and fragments of the work. Money for purchased finished works due to the non-compliance of this work with your requirements or its uniqueness, they are not returned.

* The category of work is estimated in accordance with the qualitative and quantitative parameters of the material provided. This material, neither in its entirety, nor any of its parts, is a finished scientific work, final qualification work, scientific report or other work provided for by the state system of scientific certification or necessary for passing an intermediate or final certification. This material is a subjective result of processing, structuring and formatting the information collected by its author and is intended primarily to be used as a source for self-preparation of the work on this topic.

1

AT modern world The problem of euthanasia occupies a leading place among the most discussed issues of society. In this article, we will look at key points this problem and try to understand the attitude of the people of our country to euthanasia. Euthanasia is officially banned in Russia, but many countries actively use this type of relief for severe, incurable diseases. This article is about what arguments the medical personnel of these countries are guided by. View of seriously ill people on euthanasia and medical workers who work in institutions in countries that prohibit euthanasia will also be discussed in the text below. What is euthanasia? It is the practice of ending the lives of people who suffer from incurable diseases. Also, euthanasia is often called the termination of the life of people objectionable to the state, prisoners, people who want to die. Euthanasia can also be called the euthanasia of stray animals and seriously ill pets. The latter is often practiced in our country and most people do not see any ethical problem in this procedure. So why is there so much controversy about euthanasia for humans? This is what we will try to find out in the text below.

medicine

problem

euthanasia

1. Akopov V. I. Ethical, legal and medical problems of euthanasia // Medical Law and Ethics, 2000. - 1. - P. 47-55;

2. J. Rachels "Active and passive euthanasia" // Ethical thought: Scientific publicist. reading. 1990.

3. Dmitriev Yu. A., Shleneva E. V. The human right in the Russian Federation to carry out euthanasia // State and Law, 2000. - 11. - P. 52-59;

4. Kapinus O. S. Euthanasia as a social and legal phenomenon: monograph. - M.: Bukvoed, 2006

5. Rybin V. A. Euthanasia. The medicine. Culture: Philosophical Foundations of the Modern Socio-Cultural Crisis in the Medical and Anthropological Aspect. 2009

Euthanasia is a conscious action that leads to the death of a hopelessly ill and suffering person in a relatively quick and painless way in order to end incurable pain and suffering.

For the first time, the term "euthanasia" was used by F. Bacon, an English philosopher and politician, according to which "the doctor's duty is not only to restore health, but also to alleviate the suffering and anguish caused by diseases ... even in in the case when there is no longer any hope of salvation and you can only make death itself easier and calmer, because this euthanasia ... in itself is no small happiness ”(Bacon F. Soch. in 2 vols., vol. 2 Moscow, 1978, p. 269).

Distinguish between passive and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is the refusal of life-sustaining treatment when it is either stopped or not started. Active euthanasia is the deliberate intervention to end a patient's life by injecting a lethal agent.

The controversy over euthanasia has been going on since ancient times. So Socrates, Plato and the Stoic philosophers from Zeno to the Roman philosopher Seneca justified euthanasia, while Aristotle, the Pythagoreans and F. Aquinas were against it. In the modern world, some of the countries have taken the path of accepting euthanasia as a natural aid to seriously ill people. These are countries such as the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Luxembourg. In Russia, euthanasia is prohibited by Federal Law No. 323 "On the fundamentals of the health of citizens in the Russian Federation."

The American doctor Jack Kevorkian, known under the nickname Doctor Death, actively practiced euthanasia. In 1989, he created the mercitron device, which delivered a lethal dose of analgesics and toxic drugs into the patient's blood. Between 1990 and 1998 more than 130 people used mercitron. His ideas were condemned by the medical community and the US government. In 1991, D. Kevorkyan was deprived of his doctor's license.

According to sociological surveys, both in Russia and among other countries, doctors have a more negative attitude towards euthanasia than the general population.

Arguments in favor of euthanasia include the following:

1. A person should be given the right of self-determination to the extent that he himself can choose whether to continue his life or cut it off.
2. A person must be protected from cruel and inhumane treatment.
3. A person has the right to be an altruist. Those. feel sorry for your loved ones, do not burden them either morally or financially.
4. The economic side of the problem. The treatment and maintenance of the doomed takes a lot of money from society.

Arguments against euthanasia include:

1. Active euthanasia is an attack on the value of human life.
2. The possibility of diagnostic and prognostic errors of the doctor.
3. Opportunity to develop new drugs and treatments.
4. Availability of effective pain relievers.
5. Risk of abuse by staff. The point is that if active euthanasia is legalized, medical personnel will be tempted to use it not so much based on the interests and desires of the patient, but on other, much less humane, considerations. In the numerous discussions about euthanasia that flare up from time to time in our press, this argument is used, perhaps, more often than all others.

Thus, we see that the arguments for and against are very strong. Medical personnel who work in a country that allows euthanasia have to turn a blind eye to the arguments against it. And also with countries that ban euthanasia. We, as the authors of this article, are for euthanasia. Every person has the right to life. Why do many countries deny people the right to die? Euthanasia is a freedom of choice for people doomed to a painful death. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to reveal to the reader the positive and negative sides euthanasia and give people the opportunity to choose their own position.

Bibliographic link

Redkina T.V., Zvezdova D.S. EUTHANASIA: ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST // International Student Scientific Bulletin. - 2015. - No. 1.;
URL: http://eduherald.ru/ru/article/view?id=11971 (date of access: 01/04/2020). We bring to your attention the journals published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural History"

I asked God for an easy life:
Look how dark it is all around.
God answered: - Wait a little,
You will ask for something else.
Here the road ends
Every year the thread of life is thinner.
I asked God for an easy life,
You should ask for an easy death.

Iva;n Iva;novich Tkhorzhe;vsky

Euthanasia, or "easy death", is the termination of the life of a person experiencing suffering and not having the opportunity to end this suffering in any other way.

This is the definition, in a free paraphrase from the language of Wikipedia. However, endless ethical disputes rage around him (and are unlikely to stop soon). As a person who is confronted every day with issues related to suffering and death, I believe that it is very useful for each person to formulate for himself the attitude to this issue, because when something like this suddenly falls upon us, it is already very difficult to think logically.
When they talk about medical euthanasia, it is understood that a person is not just sick, and not just terminally ill, but leaves the world literally in the coming days, while his life is already devoid of any pleasure - he suffers from pain, cannot get up , cannot contact with loved ones, and does not want to continue life in this state.

Before thinking about the ethical justification of euthanasia, we must first cut off the inappropriate use of the word. That is eugenics. Pseudoscience that some people are worse than others and do not deserve life simply because they were not born the way society should be. For example, homosexuals, Jews or people with Down syndrome. This nightmarish concept was tied to the concept of euthanasia by the Nazis, and it is simply vile to discuss it now. I think no one needs to explain that concentration camps are not a haven for euthanasia. It is disgusting to even talk about such things, but it was important for me to emphasize that we are not at all about this. Rather the opposite. We are about the free choice of EVERY person.

In addition, euthanasia cannot be discussed within the framework of any religion, especially Abrahamic (Christianity, Judaism, Islam). Not wanting to offend anyone, respecting any religious denominations, one cannot but note that for a religious person there is simply no question of euthanasia. Religion forbids euthanasia. God gave, God took, you can't rush him. That's the whole discussion. The cultural heritage of these religions is most likely responsible for such values ​​as "fight for life at any cost", contempt for suicide, and humility in the face of any trials. Respecting the desire of a person to die according to his faith (and what remains for us, doctors), we will not rush him. However, for those who cannot rely only on holy books in such matters, let's still tell why euthanasia is a complex and ambiguous concept.

Euthanasia in our time is divided into two types - active and passive. Passive euthanasia allows you NOT to do everything you can to save a person's life. Not connected to a ventilator is the most classic example. Do not give medication. Just something that eases the pain. And wait until the person himself ceases to exist. This type of euthanasia is allowed in a number of countries, including Israel, which I observe.
Active euthanasia is the infliction of death. That is, roughly speaking, suffocation with a pillow. Permission to administer a lethal dose of medication to a patient. of course, at his will. On the this stage, according to the same Wikipedia, active euthanasia is allowed in: the Netherlands, Belgium and a couple of US states. From here, by the way, follows the phenomenon of Suicidal tourism "terminally ill and dying people in those countries where active euthanasia is allowed. Isn't this surrealism? However, a little patience.
And now, when we have at least a little understood the concepts, let's move on directly to the ethical component.

On the issue of passive euthanasia. The main focus is on her. It is permitted by law where more countries, besides, you can always cling to the vague formulation "The patient does not want such treatment, because he simply does not want to", and in any case it is impossible to force him if he is of sound mind. So, two main aspects can be distinguished: 1. the desire of a person to end his life and 2. the recognition of society (doctors and medical staff in the first place) of this desire as justified. These two aspects are closely intertwined, since it is the physicians' responsibility to determine the patient's condition, but only the patient can decide on the topic of his life.
As for physicians, the state of "dying" is an ambiguous concept. The very fact of an incurable disease is not enough. People live with incurable diseases for years. The "suffering" itself is not enough. Now a person is suffering, perhaps he has despaired, but the suffering can be alleviated, and then, perhaps, get rid of them. So, the doctor must look at the situation and judge: what will be the life expectancy of the patient; what are the chances of his condition improving; how much it is in the medical power to alleviate the patient's condition and provide him with comfort. However, in medicine, alas, there is no black and white. The main problem is that we really cannot say exactly how much a person has left. On the account of each physician, there are a number of "miracles" seen with his own eyes, when a person was supposed to die within a week, and he stretched out for six months. For example, of course. Physicians also do not want the similar responsibility. They give information to the patient. People in your condition usually live this much. We can offer you this relief. As far as we know, you have almost no chance of improvement. And this "practically" is torment for a person who is ready to grasp at straws. We understand this, but we cannot say "this is for sure, and it will certainly happen", because, although it is bitter, doctors are not gods.
In cases of depression and despair, it is important, of course, not to overdo it. Perhaps, giving a person information that one way or another he is unlikely to live more than six months, we are pushing him to the decision to send these six months to hell, but he could have managed to visit Venice and jump with a parachute. But doctors don't overdo it. We are well aware that we are not playing with spillikins, that a person has one, precious life, even if it is difficult for him, and we try with all our might to prolong it if we see at least some sense in this for the patient.
The patient, for his part, is dependent on medicine. He may be the smartest person who graduated from Harvard, or he may be an illiterate old woman from the village. When he is in the hospital, he receives information about himself from doctors, and this in itself is scary. Much depends on how we present this information to him - but not all. The character of a person, his system of values, the meaning of life, hobbies and love, everything that makes up his essence, goes into action. Yes, at least the same religion can easily pull the scales. Mortal sin, the prospect of going to hell - and the person firmly insists on any medical intervention. Passive euthanasia leaves a loophole for a religious person (refusal to connect to a ventilator), but it depends on how he understands and perceives his faith, and it is not for us to judge him.
On the other hand, passive euthanasia can be seen as torture. Let us not cause it, but we stand and PASSIVELY observe. For physicians, this situation is especially difficult, believe me, we already have at the level of reflexes the desire to save and heal. Repeatedly, I was a participant in events when a presumptuous physician could not stand it and gave some kind of medicine that extended the patient's life ... for several hours. Terrible for all hours.
The possibility of giving the patient intravenous painkillers, that is, morphine, greatly facilitates the situation. The patient sleeps and dies in his sleep. At the very least, he does not experience suffering, and I will tell you, this is an incredible boon. Inexpressible in words.

In active euthanasia, the very essence of the termination of life is added to all these issues. Like it or not, but when a person swallows pills or cuts his veins to end his life - this is suicide. Like it or not, but giving a lethal dose to a person is murder. Suicide disgusts many (at least because of the same faith), and murder - even more so. There are few people who are cold-blooded enough, there are few cases that are unambiguous enough to always justify themselves. Perhaps that is why active euthanasia, although sometimes it seems to be the most attractive and worthy way out, is still banned in most countries, both developed and not very developed.

Patient's relatives. In fact, it was because of them that I decided to discuss this difficult and complex topic.
It so happened (however, how could it be otherwise?) that I am writing these lines at work, on one of the rare calm night shifts. You don't have to go far for another example, it's right in front of my nose. Large family, children, grandchildren, wife. And the patient himself, who can no longer speak. And it's incredibly hard to understand what he wants. Or he's completely unconscious. Who do we go to to decide what to do with the patient? Of course, to the family.
The family has even more influencing factors. Aside from all the cultural motives, the particularities of religion and character and the devil knows what, they are not the patient himself. They don't want that kind of responsibility. They love the "patient", which for them is dad, mom, just "he". They don't want to decide for him. And they don't want to hurt him. And they don't want to lose it. And they don't want to take his life. And so, we ask them a question straight on: either we leave him alone, and he will die within a few hours, or we are trying to put him on an artificial respiration apparatus, and if he does not die in the process, he will live a couple more days. Maybe a week. Unconscious, of course.
Who doesn't need time to think about a question like this? We doctors are not in a hurry. But while they are thinking, a man is suffocating and suffering in the room, suspended between life and death.
Often, relatives do not want to give strong painkillers to loved ones, because "then he sleeps all the time, and we wanted to ..."
Sometimes, in response to our explanations, they repeat "Are you sure? Is that right? Is there any possibility of another outcome?" And we cannot answer them so that they hear us. Because we are sure, and this is for sure, but the possibility - one hundred thousandth of a percent - is always there. The question is who pays for it.
The only thing I can say to relatives in such a situation is, apart from expressing deep and sincere sympathy and admiration for their resilience: try not to forget that you are not doing this for yourself. It's very hard, but remember that you stay and he leaves. Do everything the way you think your loved one wants. This does not mean obeying the doctors. It means listening to the patient. And the doctors ... they are here for this and sit.

The topic of euthanasia is not an easy topic. While I was writing, I myself thought a lot, trying to systematize and present it as simply as possible. Perhaps I did not quite succeed, but the main thing is that I generally reminded of this. We all, I hope, live on the sunny side of the street. And we do not want to think about the sad. But there is no person who, sooner or later, would not face death.

For a snack - a story about a worthy death. Of course, the patient is a collective image, out of respect for the families, I shuffle the facts, but even if this patient did not exist, it would be worth inventing her!
An amazing woman once lay in our department (with lymphoma. A malignant disease of the lymph nodes, roughly speaking). Sixty years old, having beaten breast cancer and something with her heart (little things, who even notices them), she simply radiated calmness and confidence. Her husband, already quite an old man, entertained us, getting out at night for a glass of tea, stories about his Polish childhood and his own peculiar views on Judaism. He just did not pray for his wife, admiration for her showed through in his every word, in every turn of his head. Two children, as it should be with a Jewish mother - one doctor, the other a lawyer, arranged duty next to her when she allowed. She was the captain of her ship. Talking casually to her cardiologist, she informed him about the progress of our treatment something like this: “And so, they believe that if I don’t die from chemo in the next two months, then I have such and such a chance” ... Never met such a brave person. She built all our doctors, and she psychoanalyzed a couple who tried to look very smart, so that later they walked very quiet.
With each hospitalization, she became weaker and weaker. We, as always, used everything we could, and she accepted difficult treatment without unnecessary complaints. The husband also did not complain, although he wanted to, it was clear from him. She probably didn't allow it. When it became clear that this time she had lost, she did not rush to the next world at all. In her room all the time there were some personalities with thin beards or in strange hats. Together with the children, she developed a website in which she described her entire adventurous life, all her knowledge. Until recently, she worked with her own children and husband on the topic of accepting her own death! She even treated them! Long before the last line, she loudly, clearly and unequivocally told everyone that she did not want resuscitation, intubation, no ation at all. He wants to die quietly and peacefully. And with great joy and pride for her, we gave her this opportunity. She just slowly weakened and began to fall asleep, "fall through" into an unconscious state, and when she was in pain, we helped her with this. The last couple of days, that she could no longer build and communicate with everyone, the children, her husband and strange personalities were having intelligent conversations, sitting around her and holding her hand. One fine evening, she simply stopped breathing and her heart stopped. She left behind so many good memories, so much wisdom, not to mention a calm, quite viable family that will carry her memory with joy. And not to mention the fact that in our department, rich in death of all sorts, she will not be forgotten very soon either. It seems to be nothing special, but when the doctors say "she left like a queen!" with a tremor in his voice - it's worth it. And even more - to leave without torment, calm for those you leave behind ...