Euthanasia as a Social Problem: Strategies of Problematization and Deproblematization

Abstract

The issue of euthanasia is discussed here as a social problem with reference to the social constructionist method. This entails seeing social problems as a constructed dialogue between various actors. In this approach, it is necessary to deconstruct existing ideas to find the meaning within, thus reconstructing the meanings lying behind rhetorical devices that are used to present the problematization of euthanasia. This is done by discourse analysis of the public output in the media, in medical journals and on the internet. This includes the images used in the debates and how foreign media has an influence on media discourse on the issue. Of special interest here is the way programmes on UK television were represented on the Russian show ‘Vremya’ on Channel 1. Key interviews were also conducted, which included specialists from various fields; medical staff, jurists, priests, psychologists and people working in the media. A special aspect in Russia is the role of the Orthodox Church and the influence of its values on society, which see euthanasia as a sin against God. On the other hand, medical opinion in revealed to be strongly divided on the issue, a fact that is not particularly reflected in society in general. Overall, the issue remains out of the mainstream in Russia, lacking real popularity as an area of important debate. On the one hand, the question over its status is a question of fundamental human rights about the legal freedom to end ones life in a way of one’s own choosing, which is as seen as unalienable as the right to life itself. However, the opponents of euthanasia often couch the debate in the rhetoric of loss rather than rights and it is this aspect that remains dominant in Russia. This anti-euthanasia consensus has emerged in the legal establishment, the medical profession and the religious segment of the population. This means the control of a person’s life remains firmly in the hands of society and the state, rather than the individual.