Prof. Dimitri Kitsikis'la Yaptığım Mülakat

Genel Koordinatörü olduğum ve öğrencilerimin kurduğu Uluslararası Politika Akademisi (UPA) adına geçtiğimiz günlerde dünyaca ünlü Yunan Türkolog Prof. Dr. Dimitri Kitsikis'le bir mülakat gerçekleştirdim. Aşağıdaki linklerden bu mülakatı İngilizce ve Türkçe olarak okuyabilirsiniz.

İngilizce

Türkçe

Dr. Ozan Örmeci

Öcalan'a Ev Hapsi

Geçtiğimiz günlerde Türk siyasetine damgasını vuran olay, CHP lideri Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu’nun Başbakan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’la yaptığı görüşmenin ardından kamuoyuna duyurduğu AKP, CHP, MHP ve BDP’den temsilcilerin ve Güneydoğu sorunu üzerinde yazıp-çizen uzmanların da katılımıyla oluşturuacak bir “Akil Adamlar Heyeti” kurulmasına yönelik çabalarıydı. CHP Genel Başkanı’nın kendi ifadesiyle siyasal kariyerinin bitmesini dahi göze alarak başlattığı bu iyi niyetli girişim; önce MHP Genel Başkanı Devlet Bahçeli’nin sürece temelden karşı çıkan sert açıklamaları, önceki gün de evlerimize ateş düşüren şehit haberlerinin yarattığı öfkenin etkisiyle beklenildiği üzere sonuçsuz kaldı.

Yaklaşık 30 yıldır Türkiye’ye çok büyük zararları olmuş terör (PKK) sorununun, önemli konjonktürel değişiklikler yaşanmadan yalnızca birkaç kişinin biraraya gelip toplantı yapmasıyla çözebileceğini ummanın naifliği bir yana, bu süreçte CHP Genel Başkanı Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu’nun söylediği “Partiler uzlaşırsa terör örgütü lideri Abdullah Öcalan’a ev hapsi uygulanabilir” sözü ilerleyen aylarda kendisini takip edecek ve zor durumlara sokacak gibi gözüküyor. Aslında BDP’liler ve iktidar çevrelerinden daha önce de duyduğumuz bu sözü son olarak Başbakan Yardımcısı Sayın Bülent Arınç da kullanmıştı. Fakat Başbakan Erdoğan tüm medya yönlendirmelerine karşın kendisi bizzat böyle bir ifade kullanmamakta direndi. Terör eylemlerinin kış aylarının bitmesiyle birlikte artarak devam edeceğinin uzmanlarca ifade edildiği bir ortamda Sayın Kılıçdaroğlu’nun bu açıklamasının seçim zamanı yaklaştıkça diğer partiler tarafından kullanılabilecek bir argüman haline dönüşmesi muhtemel gözüküyor. Aslında güneydoğuda ve Kürt seçmen nezdinde itibarını ve partisinin oylarını arttırmak isteyen Kılıçdaroğlu, işler ters giderse batıdaki ulusalcı oyları kaybetmek riskiyle de karşı karşıya kalabilir. Nitekim SONAR araştırma şirketinin bugün yayınlanan araştırması, CHP oylarının yüzde 19’lara düştüğünü, MHP oylarının ise yüzde 17’leri bulduğunu gösteriyor. Bu 3-4 puanlık ve CHP’den MHP’ye doğru olduğu düşünülen oy kaymasının, son dönemde yaşanan gelişmelerle ilişkili olma ihtimali oldukça yüksek. Bu nedenle CHP yönetiminin zaten tarihin en güçlü iktidarlarından birisinin karşısında, zayıf bir anamuhalefet partisi görüntüsü çizerken adımlarını çok daha iyi planlaması gerektiği görülüyor. İyi niyet ve nezaket siyasette maalesef her zaman prim yapmayabiliyor. Siyasetin kendi kuralları, kendi doğası ve herşeyden önemlisi en çok oy oranına ulaşmak gibi bir amacı var.

Burada bir diğer önemli faktör de, Kürt sorunu ile terör sorununun birbirinden ayrıştırılması ve ikisi arasında doğrudan bir bağ kurulmasına uygun ortam yaratılmamasıdır. Devlet vatandaşlarını kucaklamaya çalışırken, terör örgütü karşısında yenilmiş ve köşeye sıkışmış görüntüsü vermemelidir. Böylesi bir tablo kamuoyunda, “artık çocuklarımız ölmesin” düşüncesinden ziyade “önceden ölen çocuklarımız boşuna öldüler” gibi bir algılama yaratabilir. Bu konunun çözümüyle ilgili önerilerimi ilerleyen haftalarda Avrupa’dan örneklerle birlikte sizlerle paylaşacağım.

Dr. Ozan Örmeci

Censorship on Religion

Censorship as a dictionary definition means “the suppression or deletion of objectionable information, as determined by the censor”[1]. There is no denying that in the age of liberal democracy and extensive human rights, censorship becomes much more unwarranted for individuals and societies. Censorship can be said to have lost its logic and function due to globalization and increasing communicational facilities such as the internet. Today, we can easily follow the news in our own country or in other countries very distant to ourselves from international television channels and internet. In this kind of a situation, the logic of censorship, bans and restrictions should be questioned and better understood. However, censorship still exists especially in political and religious areas. Since religion is a sacred area, criticism towards religions and religious institutions become a much more controversial topic. In this assignment, I am going to discuss whether censorship on religion is necessary or not in the light of two important texts; John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” and Gary Willis’ “In Praise of Censure”.

John Stuart Mill as an important philosopher known as one of the forefathers of liberalism advocates a “harm principle” to balance the problems of censorship. According to this harm principle, an individual is free to think and do anything he/she wants unless his/her actions begin to cause harm for other members of the society. “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill, pg 5). In his opinion, the state should appear at that point and restrict some rights of the individual that causes harm for others for the sake of the society. Unless someone’s behaviors cause harm for others, the state should be respectful towards all kinds of ideas, behaviors and should not try to raise its ideal citizens but instead should make efforts to create a peaceful environment in which individuals can live freely according to their own choices, desires. Mill believes in the necessity of different opinions, different tastes both for an individual and for the society and gives great importance to freedom of expression. “But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation - those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error” (Mill, pg 7-8). In Mill’s view, liberties should cover the domains of consciousness, liberty of thought and feeling on scientific, moral and theological levels (Mill, pg 6). It clearly shows that Mill gives great importance to religious freedoms. He is against restrictions on three main bases. First of all, the different idea may be true though the majority of people support the contrary idea. Secondly, an opposing view may not be correct but it may and very commonly does have a portion of truth. Thirdly, in order to understand the essence of our views, we need to understand the opposing views (Mill, pg 8). So, it is clear that in Mill’s view censorship on religion will only be justified if it aims to prevent a damage to be done to other individuals and society. Mill also adds that this principle would be available for an enlightened society, not for barbarians who need despotic governments.

Garry Willis on the other hand, in his article “In Praise of Censure” approaches to the subject from a different angle. He tries to show that even the liberals do not accept complete freedom of opinion since nationalists and racists could also use this liberty for their own aims. “But the most interesting movement to limit speech is directed at defamatory utterances against blacks, homosexuals, Jews, women, or other stigmatizable groups” (Willis, pg 19). According to Willis, this shows that censorship can be very beneficial and liberals should be more careful in defending pornography and marginal tendencies in the name of freedom of speech. According to Garry Willis; “A false ideal of tolerance has not only outlawed censorship but discouraged censoriousness” (Willis, pg 20). Willis is angry towards liberals since they do not show the same attention towards disrespectful speeches against moral and religious values. In fact, in his opinion “one of the great mistakes of liberals in recent decades has been the ceding of moral concern to right-wingers” (Willis, pg 21). So, in Willis’ view censorship should be used frequently when there is an attack towards the society’s moral and religious views and liberals should understand that morality is equally important to anti-racism and non-discrimination.

After analyzing these two texts, we can discuss whether religious censorship could be made or not. Here I support Mill’s “harm principle” and think that all views even religious ones should be tolerated if they do not cause harm to individuals and society. A view can be different but it will not necessarily make harm to society. These views should be accepted as part of criticism and should be tolerated. However, offensive and provocative views that create problems within the society and between the individuals should not be accepted since they would cause harm. For instance, the caricature of Prophet Mohammed that was published in a Danish newspaper should be accepted as provocative and offensive since it humiliates all Muslims and create problems between Christians and Muslims in the world. However, criticism towards Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist group Al-Queda would be naturally accepted since it tries to protect society and individuals from violence propaganda and false interpretation of Islam. Willis might be right in defending morality but he should also accept that in a globalizing world, some rules and norms that are thought to be morally beneficial can become expired and criticism made in a democratic way would not cause harm to people.

We can compare and contrast two different approaches to religious censorship by giving examples from European Union and Syria in the light of two important sources; Barbara Larkin’s “International Religious Freedom (2000): Report to Congress by the Department” book and Manny Paraschos’  “Religion, Religious Expression and the Law in European Union” article. Paraschos points out some problems of European democracy concerning religious freedom but he still admits that EU countries by legal-judicial ways had guaranteed the religious freedom. For instance, European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in its article 9 express that, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance” (Paraschos, pg 18). Paraschos also claims that EU countries have some deficiencies concerning religious freedoms such as the state’s interference into the religion mostly caused because of their Church dominated background. For instance, “offensive religious expression” is criminalized in EU countries by protecting the religious sensibilities of the majority (Paraschos, pg 18). However, EU standards are still very developed and high. We see that restriction is based on the idea of protecting majority’s good and not causing harm to anyone. In this way, EU approach is similar to Mill’s “harm principle”. However, looking at Syria the picture seems completely different.

Although Syrian constitution seems to provide freedom of religion, the government imposes many restrictions on people. For instance, although there are some other religions in the society, the constitution requires the president to be a Muslim (Larkin, pg 479). There is no state religion and the country seems to be a secular one but the president must be a Muslim and this shows how Syrian system works in discriminatory way. Moreover, “Jews are barred from government employment and do not have military service obligations” (Larkin, pg 480). This shows that the country is in fact not secular and does not consider Jews as first-class citizens. There can be some political reasons behind this such as the Palestine-Israel conflict, but it still is a discriminatory application. For instance, Syrian government had previously “arrested several members of Jehovah’s Witnesses as they gathered for religious meetings in 1997” (Larkin, pg 480). This shows that Syrian government works unlike European governments with the mentality of preventing people to believe in other religions although they do not cause harm. The meetings of Jews could hardly be described as a problem since they only practice their beliefs and do not cause harm to other people.

Finally, in my opinion Mill’s approach to the problem is more plausible and religious censorship could only be accepted on the basis of preventing harm. Criticism should always be accepted and it will in fact help ourselves to check and develop our views. However, offensive and provocative contents should not be accepted as part of criticism. European countries’ system which is similar to Mill’s understanding seems much more plausible and democratic than Syrian type of governing.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

-        Mill, John Stuart, “On Liberty”

-        Willis, Gary, “In Praise of Censure”

-      Paraschos, Manny, “Religion, Religious Expression and the Law in European Union” in Thierstein, Joel & Kamalipour Yahya R. (ed.), 2000, “Religion, Law and Freedom: A Global Perspective”, Praeger/Greenwood

-    Larkin, Barbara, 2000, “International Religious Freedom (2000): Report to Congress by the Department”, Joint Committee Print

-        Wikipedia.org, http://www.wikipedia.org/

---

[1] Wikipedia.org, http://www.wikipedia.org/

Euthanasia

American politics is referred as a huge sub field of international politics, since United States is the biggest world power in the international political arena. Therefore many scholars analyze the politics in United States. The aim of this essay is to analyze an issue that is occupying an important place in American politics recently, which is euthanasia.

Euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his/her alleged benefit. When killing is done by act, than it means that the person who killed the patient has done something like giving too much morphine. In other words, the person has done something that causes death. However when the killing is done by omission then the person does not do such things as artificial respiration or he switches off a machine that keeps the patient alive. “Euthanasia can involve actively causing death (which is almost always illegal) or assisting someone to commit suicide; some also extend it to the practice of not interfering with suicide, such as allowing a patient to decline vital medication or treatment” [1].

Euthanasia is divided into two main headings. First one is active euthanasia and second one is passive euthanasia. In the active euthanasia the person who is responsible of the act of killing, like the physician or so, causes the death of the patient with a direct action. Passive euthanasia on the other hand, is as stated above killing someone via omission. The difference of these two from the physician assisted suicide is that, in assisted suicide the physician gives information to the patient or supplies him the means for committing a suicide. An example for this could be writing a prescription for overdose pills. “In euthanasia one person does something that directly kills another. In assisted suicide, a person knowingly and intentionally provides the means or in some way helps a suicidal person kill himself”[2].

 There are three different types of euthanasia. The first one is voluntary euthanasia, in which the patient who would like to end his life asks for euthanasia. The patient could make this request during his illness or when his situation is going to stay the same like in a coma situation. Second one is called non-voluntary euthanasia and in this situation due to the illness the patient is suffering from, the patient cannot decide for living or ending his life. An example for this kind of euthanasia is “turning off life-support”; in cases where physicians think that improvement is merely possible or when there is a serious brain damage etc. Last one is involuntary euthanasia and in this case the patient may understand the difference between life and death, unlike the other situations. However even if he does not accept to have euthanasia, due to his future pain because of the illness he is suffering from, the physicians may try to oblige him to accept euthanasia.

If we start to examine the concept euthanasia throughout the history we can see its evolution and also the important cases that left a great impact that carried the concept today. At the outset, assisted suicide was something that should be punished. However it was prohibited by the Western laws in the early times, for those who wanted to legalize it, individual liberty was the first reason to make it something acceptable. Euthanasia, which can also be regarded as “the practice of killing a person or animal, in a painless or minimally painful way, for merciful reasons, usually to end suffering”[3], has first appeared in Ancient Greece and Rome. In certain situations killing somebody or helping them to die was something acceptable. “In the Greek city of Sparta all newborns with severe birth defects were left to die”[4]. In some societies even the voluntary euthanasia for elderly people was regarded as normal. In 400 BC, doctors have made their Hippocratic oaths and with this oath, they have promised not to give any harm to patients and not to suggest any counsel for deadly medicine. Between 1300s and 1900s the English Common Law has disapproved both suicide and assisting suicide, and regarded suicide as a crime. Meanwhile in 1828, in America, American statute expressly forbid assisting suicide.

The turning point in the issue of euthanasia was Aktion T4. This was a program of Nazi Germany, which was aiming to kill children and adults that were born with physical deformities or that had mental problems. The euthanasia program killed these people with carbon monoxide gases. Later, when the public started to realize this program not to get all the attention on them, the personnel with these gas vans were taken to Eastern Europe, where the gassing experiments were continued in concentration camps like Auschwitz. This program helped the intention of creating the pure Aryan race with no flaws. The doctors in Nazi Germany could designate who was worthy of life, and that was indeed wrong because Aktion T4 was regarded as giving too much power to doctors about issues like life and death.

As time went by, certain forms of euthanasia were accepted by some states. The first legal step about euthanasia has come from North Australia, although the result was not very good. With the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in 1995, euthanasia was legalized. Even though Northern Australia has been the first jurisdiction legalizing euthanasia, in 1997 the federal Parliament of Australia overturned this law. On the other hand Netherlands had been the first country, which legalized active euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2001.  Although Netherlands is known as one of the leading country in attaining social policies, in the subject of euthanasia and assisted suicide they have some strict rules that the physician should follow. If the patient is facing huge amount of pain, if he is asking for euthanasia / assisted suicide voluntarily, if the physician shares ideas about the condition of the patient with another physician and lastly if the physician examines the condition of the patient for the last time for once more, then the assisted suicide / euthanasia could be done within the legal borders. If a physician following the procedures does not fulfill these conditions step-by-step, then both euthanasia and assisted suicide will still be regarded as crimes. Another country that legalized active euthanasia was Belgium. Although they have passed laws that favor euthanasia in 2002, again like in Netherlands there were some limitations. Additionally to the rules in Netherlands approval of a government commission was needed for realizing a euthanasia case. The complicated process of euthanasia in Belgium is regarded as “bureaucracy of death”[5], but it is only a precaution to prevent the numberless illegal cases of euthanasia cases.

Meanwhile in US, the issue of euthanasia was still problematic. Although in 1970s people have started to look at the issue with less prejudice, yet none of the states had accepted it. With the fast growing technology, ill people started to live for very long times, with the help of respirators and kidney machines and this resulted in nothing but suffering of the patients and their families. After some debates, euthanasia took part in constitution of United States for the reason that it represents the individual rights of people on deciding “life or death”. One of the example cases, which had an important impact on euthanasia concept is; Karen Ann Quinlan’s case on passive euthanasia. She could only live with being connected to a device because she had a dreadful damage in her brain. The girl was in coma and the medical indicators suggested that she would stay like that for the rest of her life. Therefore her family decided and requested for euthanasia, but the hospital refused. After a long legal war between the Quinlan family and the courts, in 1976 Quinlan family has succeeded to get an approval and the New Jersey Supreme Court gave the permission to Quinlans for disconnecting the device. When the device was disconnected Karen Ann started to breath and for 9 more years she lived unconsciously. Therefore, by 1997 nearly every state has adopted the system of living wills, which indicates wishes about death support. These wills are different from an assisted suicide because the individual makes them, and by making them he deters the time and manner of his death. “In particular, these directives empower and instruct doctors to withhold life-support systems if the individuals become terminally ill”[6].

There is only one state in US that has legalized euthanasia and that is Oregon. In 1998 physician-assisted suicide became legal in Oregon, although there are certain limits to that. The legalization of assisted suicide in Oregon was done through the voting of the Death with Dignity Act. The Oregon voters have accepted this act with 60% of votes. “The Death with Dignity Act allows terminally ill Oregon residents to obtain from their physicians and use prescriptions for self-administered, lethal medications”[7]. According to this act if a person decides to end his life by obeying the rules stated in the act, then this would not be considered as a suicide. One important thing about the Oregon Death with Dignity Act is that it only allows assisted suicide and it absolutely prohibits euthanasia. Some important articles from this act are stated below: “In order to request a prescription for lethal medications, this act requires that a patient must be:

·       18 years old or older,

·       A resident of Oregon,

·       Capable of make and communicate health care decisions

·       A terminal illness that would cause the death of the patient should be determined within 6 months.

·       After these conditions are met, patients are eligible to request a prescription.

·       The patient must make two verbal requests to their physician, separated by at least 15 days

·       The patient must provide a written request to their physician.

The prescribing physician and a consulting physician must confirm the diagnosis and prognosis. The prescribing physician and a consulting physician must determine whether the patient is capable. If either physician believes the patient’s judgment is impaired by a psychiatric or psychological disorder, such as depression, the patient must be referred for counseling

·       The prescribing physician must inform the patient of feasible alternatives to assisted suicide including comfort care, hospice care, and pain control

·       The prescribing physician must request, but may not require, the patient to notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request”[8].

One other important case of euthanasia in American politics is Jack Kevorkian’s trial. While Oregon had been open to accept assisted suicide, another state, Michigan, was fighting against it severely. Kevorkian is an American physician, who was famous for helping terminally ill people to end their lives. He had been interested with the issue of death very much, and even before starting the act of assisted suicide, he was writing articles about euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. “In 1986 Kevorkian learned that some doctors in the Netherlands were helping patients who were terminally ill or experiencing unbearable suffering to die. This news caused his longtime interest in dying patients to evolve into a campaign to legitimize physician-assisted suicide”[9]. In 1989 he had created a device that he named as Thanatron, Greek for ‘death machine’, which he planned to use for patients, who were asking assistance to die. With the help of this device, he started to become famous and in 1990 with this machine a 54-year-old woman died because of her request, since she was suffering from Alzheimer disease. Until 1999, Kevorkian has gone to series of trials, which were always resulting to his favor. Nevertheless he was still assisting many ill people to commit suicides. However in 1999, he was found guilty of second-degree murder, because of having injected “a lethal dose of medication”[10] to a terminally ill patient of his. Because of this act, he was sentenced to 10 to 25 years of prison.

Although Kevorkian is known as the doctor of death for many people, with his insist on this issue he managed to pull the attention of people to this issue. “The American Medical Association has condemned his actions as violating the physician’s primary commitment to healing. However, others note that he has brought much-needed attention to the moral and legal issues surrounding assisted suicide”[11]. In United States, people are ending their lives with a very common method, which is “withholding of tube-feeding”[12]. This is a very common way and actually sometimes the family should be careful and try to avoid this or it is possible that this could occur. As stated above, Oregon is the only state in US that favors assisted suicide. These laws in Oregon have been the target point of many organizations and by politicians, who give support to these organizations.

The issue of euthanasia is a complicated subject in the American politics. Since there are people from both sides; supporting and rejecting. If we would analyze the ideas of the supporters first, their main argument is the protection of civil rights and liberties. They suggest that choice of dying or living should be in the hands of the individual, and state should not intervene to this liberty by imposing some laws or acts. This groups also claims that an ill person should have the chance of ending his life in tranquility, instead of suffering great pains only to live a little bit more. “Supporters of euthanasia state that people should be allowed to decide that they do not want to live any more, and that terminally ill patients are respected more by having their suffering end than by being kept alive against their will”[13].

Another point that the supporters of euthanasia argue is that when a patient is in a condition like coma and when there is a small amount of possibility that he could survive then euthanasia could be asked by his relatives suggesting that it costs a lot of money. As a result of the developing technology people can live longer and even when they are paralyzed or are in coma they could still survive for along period. The supporters of euthanasia suggest that this is good, however these treatments can cost a lot of money and this could give damages to the finances of a family. Contrary to the ideas of this group the people who are against euthanasia suggest that with the developing technology people can still recover or not their pain can be treated. The issue of euthanasia could be regarded as a freedom of civil liberties, however, by implementing prohibitions on euthanasia and assisted suicide, the states try to protect their citizens from “unscrupulous doctors”. They argue that finances of a family should never determine the life choices of a human being, since life is something more precious. They claim that euthanasia and especially assisted suicide make doctor killers and therefore it clashes with a regional perspective. Most efficient point that the contrary group supports is the fact that there is no need for a person to ask for euthanasia when he has the chance of committing a suicide. “People do have the power to commit suicide. Suicide and attempted suicide are not criminalized. Each and every year, and the United States alone, there are more suicides than homicides”[14]. The most logical issue that they are putting forward is the fact that in a come situation the patient is generally not in a state to decide and therefore his life is in the hands of other people. “If euthanasia were to be allowed, it is feared by some, doctors might press people into euthanasia to reduce medical costs, or because their family wants them to die”[15].

Another argument followed by people against euthanasia is the religious views. Although religion does not occupy the biggest space as a counter argument, it still is effective. Plenty of the religious groups within Christianity, Islam and Judaism are against euthanasia, since they suggest that God is the creator of everything and therefore it is only in the hands of God to decide for when and how the life of a human being could be taken away. Therefore these groups refer to issues like euthanasia and assisted suicide as rejecting the love and sovereignty of God. When we look from the perspective of ethics, euthanasia raises some ethical questions. Ethical discussions on euthanasia are over both on active and passive euthanasia. For the reason that, ethical issues depend on the Hippocratic oath of physicians in United States that is “First, do no harm…”, doing active or passive euthanasia became the target of the discussions. The beginning of 1970s was the period that there had been debates over passive euthanasia while active euthanasia became the target of religious groups and some members of medical groups. Being voluntary or non-voluntary is also an aspect in which the discussion on euthanasia lies, since in one of them the choice is patient’s; however in the other doctor or family members should decide on behalf of the patient.

 There are two sides, which are for and against active euthanasia. The side, which is against voluntary active euthanasia, believes that it is not a person’s right to kill another person. As a side effect of this situation the role of nurses, as the assistants of doctors, creates a huge confusion, since their job is to take care of the patient. On the other hand people who support active euthanasia believe that in some situations it is more humanitarian to end a patient’s life rather than forcing him continue his life by suffering, therefore doing what will be the less painful for the patient should be the main aim of the physicians / doctors. Another idea that supporters of active euthanasia points out is that, there should be a respect for the decisions of the patients. If they choose to end their life it is their decision between the life with suffering and death with tranquility. From another point of view, a person may economically be powerless to maintain medical treatment and therefore survive.

To sum up we would not be wrong to suggest that euthanasia is right at the moment one of the most important public policy issues on the agenda. It has a very critical point; since the decisions made on euthanasia and assisted suicide can affect family relations, and the interactions between doctors and patients. It is a human being’s right to die with honor. However euthanasia should not be taken as a private act. In other words euthanasia should be regarded also as the changes in law and policies to liberate a doctor or a family member to bring an end to a person’ life. Therefore it also has a point of view in which the right to euthanasia is given to the relatives of the patient or to the physician, but not to the patient. Therefore, in our opinion euthanasia brings the question of how respectable we are to life in our minds.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

·       http://www.bibleanswer.com/qa05_04.htm

·       www.collegeresearch.us/show_essay/38631.html

·       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia

·       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-4_Euthanasia_Program

·       http://www.dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/chs/pas/arresult.cfm

·       http://www.dhs.state.or.us/news/2004news/2004-0309a.html

·       www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/592.htm

·       http://www.free-cliffnotes.com/data/ha/sxg300.shtml

·       http://www.freeessays.cc/db/20/egn33.shtml

·       www.killer-essays.com/Social_Issues/sxg301.shtml

·       www.ohd.hr.state.or.us/chs/pas/pas.cfm

·       www.ohd.hr.state.or.us/chs/pas/year1/ar-intro.cfm

·    http://www.prohighway.com/Article/article_show.asp?STRARTICLEID=0000001193&head=h

·       www.suite101.com/article.cfm/death_and_dying/55337

·       www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/ articles/senior_living/peg_14/

·       https://webspace.utexas.edu/lsgraham/esl/MerciKilling.doc

·       www.wordiq.com/definition/Euthanasia

---

[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia.

[2] www.freeessays.cc/db/20/egn33.shtml.

[3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia.

[4] www.freeessays.cc/db/20/egn33.shtml.

[5] www.wordiq.com/definition/Euthanasia.

[6] www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/592.htm.

[7] www.ohd.hr.state.or.us/chs/pas/pas.cfm.

[8] www.ohd.hr.state.or.us/chs/pas/year1/ar-intro.cfm

[9] www.killer-essays.com/Social_Issues/sxg301.shtml

[10] www.suite101.com/article.cfm/death_and_dying/55337

[11] www.collegeresearch.us/show_essay/38631.html

[12] www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/ articles/senior_living/peg_14/

[13] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia

[14] www.freeessays.cc/db/20/egn33.shtml

[15] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia

Demokrat Partililerin Anılarında Yassıada

Genç yazar Sinan Demirbilek'in "Demokrat Partililerin Anılarında Yassıada" adlı kitabı Uşak AKY Yayınları tarafından piyasaya sürüldü. Ben de kitabın taslağını okuduktan sonra arka kapağı için birşeyler karaladım.

27 Mayıs İhtilali sonrasında yaşananlar, özellikle de Yassıada günleri ve Yassıada mahkemeleri Türk demokrasi tarihine utanç vesikaları olarak geçmiş acı hatıralardır. Doğruları-yanlışları, sevapları-günahlarıyla memleketine hizmet etmiş siyasetçilerin ve devlet adamlarının başarıları hakkında; olağanüstü mahkemelerde cuntacı subaylar değil, sandıkta halk ve kitaplarında bilim adamları hüküm vermelidirler. Türk milletinin 27 Mayıstan önemli dersler çıkarması; askeri kışlada, sivil hükümetleri demokrasi rotasında tutması şarttır. Genç araştırmacı Sinan Demirbilek'in bu kitabı bu alanda yazılmış tüm eserler özenle incelendikten sonra kaleme alınmış değerli bir çalışma niteliği taşımaktadır. Tüm üniversitelerimizde ilgili derslerde gençlerimize okutulması gereken örnek bir eserdir.

Dr. Ozan Örmeci (Siyaset Bilimci Yazar & Akademisyen)

Dr. Ozan Örmeci

EURO 2012

Kısaca Euro 2012 olarak bilinen 2012 Avrupa Futbol Şampiyonası, 8 Haziran-1 Temmuz 2012 tarihleri arasında Ukrayna ve Polonya’da düzenlenecek olan futbol turnuvasıdır. Önceki gün yapılan maçlarla başlayan Euro 2012; 16 takımla oynanacak olan son Avrupa Futbol Şampiyonası özelliğine sahiptir, zira Euro 2016’dan itibaren Avrupa Futbol Şampiyonaları 24 takımla düzenlenecektir.

1960 yılından beri dört yılda bir UEFA üyesi devletlerin milli takımları arasında yapılan Avrupa Şampiyonaları bugüne kadar 13 defa düzenlenmiştir. Bu 13 şampiyonada Almanya 3 şampiyonluk ile (1972, 1980, 1996) en dikkat çeken takım olurken, turnuvayı İspanya (1964, 2008) ve Fransa (1984, 2000) ikişer kez, Sovyetler Birliği (1960), İtalya (1968), Çekoslovakya (1976), Hollanda (1988), Danimarka (1992) ve Yunanistan (2004) birer kez kazanmışlardır.

Türkiye Avrupa Futbol Şampiyonası’na ilk kez 1996 yılında Fatih Terim’in antrenörlüğü döneminde katılmayı başarmıştır. İlk turda ve maalesef gol atamadan elendiğimiz bu ilk deneyimin ardından, 2000 yılında Mustafa Denizli antrenörlüğünde takımımız çeyrek finale kadar yükselmeyi başarmıştır. 2008 yılında ise yine Fatih Terim’le tarihimizin en büyük başarısını yakalamış ve yarı finale kadar yükselmiş, ancak yarı finalde Almanya'ya şanssız bir şekilde 3-2 yenilerek elenmiştik. Maalesef ayyıldızlı milli takımımız Euro 2012’de boy gösteremeyecektir. Fakat teselli olarak Türkiye’yi Euro 2012’de hakem olarak Cüneyt Çakır’ın temsil edeceğini belirtmeliyiz.

Ev sahibi Ukrayna ve Polonya dışında turnuvaya katılacak olan 14 takımın eleme grupları sonucunda belirlenmesinin ardından Euro 2012’nin dörder takımlı dört grubu için kura çekimi yapılmış, ve sonuçta gruplar şu şekilde oluşmuştur;

A Grubu: Rusya, Yunanistan, Polonya, Çek Cumhuriyeti

B Grubu (nam-ı diğer “Ölüm Grubu”): Danimarka, Almanya, Hollanda, Portekiz

C Grubu: İspanya, İtalya, İrlanda Cumhuriyeti, Hırvatistan

D Grubu: Ukrayna, İsveç, Fransa, İngiltere.

Fikstüre göre grup maçlarının ardından çeyrek finallerde A grubu birincisi B grubu ikincisiyle, B Grubu birincisi A grubu ikincisiyle, C grubu birincisi D grubu ikincisiyle, D grubu birincisi ile C grubu ikincisiyle karşı karşıya gelecektir. İlk eşleşme olan A grubu birincisi B grubu ikincisinin galibi C grubu birincisi D grubu ikincisinin galibiyle eşleşirken, B grubu birincisi A grubu ikincisinin galibi ise D grubu birincisi C grubu ikincisiyle mücadele edecektir.

Turnuva için son şampiyon İspanya ile birlikte Almanya ve Hollanda favori takımlar, İngiltere, İtalya, Fransa ve Rusya ise diğer iddialı takımlar olarak gösterilmektedir. İspanya’nın kadro kalitesi ve Almanların üstün turnuva performansları ve takım oyunları nedeniyle bir sürpriz olmadığı takdirde bu iki takımdan birinin şampiyonluğunu beklemek mantıklı gözükmektedir. Ülkemizde TRT 1’den canlı yayınlanacak olan maçlar her ne kadar Türkiye turnuvada yer almasa da futbolseverleri ekranlara kilitleyecektir.

Dr. Ozan Örmeci