Let’s first discuss how to define euthanasia.
The current euthanasia law in the Netherlands, the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedure) Act, stipulates that "the patient who requests euthanasia must be over the age of 12 years. The doctor personally euthanizes the patient, but these are subject to very strict legal regulations: the doctor must be sure that the patient is completely voluntary, that the patient has thought and asked repeatedly; No help. The doctor must inform the patient of the diagnosis and condition and agree with him that there is no other way to treat his condition. Also, after euthanasia is carried out, the doctor must inform the local coroner in accordance with burial and cremation laws. report their conduct. The coroner will report the report to one of five local review boards, which will review the doctor's conduct and make an independent review of whether the doctor's euthanasia complies with the standards of the Act, and the board will decide whether to include the report and the Its review opinions are reported to the Attorney General’s Board and the local health care reviewer, and then they can decide whether to initiate a criminal investigation and prosecution against the doctor.”
It should be emphasized again that euthanasia and suicide are two completely different concepts, and under strict conditions Suicide under restraint can be called euthanasia. Personally, I am completely against suicidal behavior as cowardly and irresponsible. But euthanasia is suicide in the absence of hope and can be seen as an act of desperation. In the film, we can also see that doctors do not support euthanasia under any circumstances. Some patients are eager to seek death only because of poor mental condition or mental illness, not because their physical condition is in an unbearable state. Euthanasia deprives them of the chance to regret it. Euthanasia must be a state where the patient has no regrets. There is also a case in the film of an Alzheimer's patient seeking euthanasia. Personally, I don't think memory loss is a condition for euthanasia. There are many short-term memory sufferers, and their lives are still beautiful, even if their memory is only the past 24 hours or 24 minutes.
In 1962, the Nagoya High Court of Japan listed six elements for legal euthanasia: (1) Judging by modern medical knowledge and technology, the patient is suffering from an incurable disease and the time of death is imminent; (2) The patient is in extreme pain and is horrific. ; (3) The sole purpose of taking the patient's life is to relieve the pain of the patient's death; (4) If the patient is conscious and has the ability to express himself, he needs his sincere entrustment and consent; (5) The principle of taking the patient's life It should be done by physicians, and if it cannot be done by physicians, there must be sufficient persuasive reasons; (6) the method of taking the patient's life should be ethically appropriate. In 1995, the Yokohama District Court in Japan listed four new requirements for legal euthanasia: (1) the patient is in extreme pain and horrific; (2) according to modern medical knowledge and technology, the patient is suffering from an incurable disease and has already died. imminent; (3) there is no other way to relieve the patient’s unbearable pain; (4) based on the patient’s sincere commission and
voluntary The United States mentioned is also extremely tolerant of euthanasia. Although there is no national law to protect euthanasia, under the jury system, the jury often acquiesces to the doctors who practice euthanasia, and the dead doctor in the film happened to offend the United States. A restricted area of the judicial system.
Here we will talk about the definition of murder, suicide, and assisted suicide in American justice.
Personally, I think that apart from Al Pacino, the most outstanding part of this film is the judgment of the judge at the end: You invited yourself here to make a final stand. You invited yourself to the wrong forum. Our nation tolerates differences of opinions, because we have a civilized and non-violent way of resolving our conflicts. We have the means and methods to protest laws with which we disagree. You can criticize the law,lecture about the law,speak to the media or petition voters,But you must always stay within the limits provided by the law. You may not break the law or take the law into your own hands. No one's unmindful of the controversy and emotion that exists over end-of-life and pain control. I assume the debate will continue in a calm and reasoned forum long after this trial, and your activities have faded from the public memory. But this trial was not about that controversy, this trial was about you, sir. You've ignored and challenged the legislature and the supreme court. Moreover, you've defied your own medical profession. This trial was about lawlessness about your disregard for a society that exists and flourishes, because of the strength of our legal system. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. You had the audacity to go on national television show the world what you did, and dare the legal system to stop you. You publicly and repeatedly announced your intentions to disregard the laws of Michigan. Because of this, I am imposing the maximum sentence of 10 to 25 years. You may now, sir, consider yourself stopped.NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. You had the audacity to go on national television show the world what you did, and dare the legal system to stop you. You publicly and repeatedly announced your intentions to disregard the laws of Michigan. Because of this, I am imposing the maximum sentence of 10 to 25 years. You may now, sir, consider yourself stopped.NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. You had the audacity to go on national television show the world what you did, and dare the legal system to stop you. You publicly and repeatedly announced your intentions to disregard the laws of Michigan. Because of this, I am imposing the maximum sentence of 10 to 25 years. You may now, sir, consider yourself stopped.
In the American judicial system, no matter where you stand. Who is behind it, the president, voters, religion, personal rights. As long as you violate the law, no matter what the reason is, you will be punished by the law, the difference is only the severity of the punishment. What the old doctor cares about is not the severity of punishment, but whether things are right or not.
Finally, let's talk about American religion.
In the United States, every president except Kennedy is a Christian, and the conservative forces possessed by Christianity have a huge influence in the United States. This is why in every election, homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia, which are considered insignificant to the Chinese, become the focus of candidates in explaining their own policy direction. Personally, I think what the Christian conservative forces in this film have done are too gentlemen. According to their ability, they can have influence on district attorneys and state governments, but perhaps the film has completely ignored the existence of conservative forces. . .
View more about You Don't Know Jack reviews
