ABSTRACT
The crisis in the health system caused by COVID-19 has left some important humanitarian deficits on how to care for the sick in their last days of life. The humanization of the dying process has been affected in three fundamental aspects, each of which constitutes a medical and ethical duty necessary. In this study, I analyze why dying accompanied, with the possibility of saying goodbye and receiving spiritual assistance, constitutes a specific triad of care and natural obligations that should not be overlooked - even in times of health crisis - if we do not want to see human dignity violated and violated some fundamental rights derived from it.
Subject(s)
Attitude to Death , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Spirituality , Terminal Care/ethics , COVID-19 , Dehumanization , Emotions , Humans , Interpersonal Relations , Moral Obligations , Palliative Care , Patient Comfort , Patient Isolation/ethics , Patient Rights , Personhood , Physician's Role , Religion , SARS-CoV-2 , Terminal Care/methods , Terminal Care/psychology , Visitors to PatientsABSTRACT
La crisis del sistema sanitario originada por el COVID-19 ha dejado al descubierto algunos déficits humanitarios importantes sobre el modo de atender a los enfermos en sus últimos días de vida. La humanización del proceso de morir se ha visto afectada en tres aspectos fundamentales cada uno de los cuales constituye un deber médico y ético indeclinable. En este estudio analizo las razones por la que morir acompañado, con la posibilidad de despedirse y recibiendo asistencia espiritual, conforman un triada especifica de cui-dados y de obligaciones naturales que no deberían soslayarse tampoco en tiempo de crisis sanitaria si no queremos ver vulnerada la dignidad humana y violados algunos derechos fundamentales derivados de ella
The crisis in the health system caused by COVID-19 has left some important humanitarian deficits on how to care for the sick in their last days of life. The humanization of the dying process has been affected in three fundamental aspects, each of which constitutes a medical and ethical duty necessary. In this study, I analyze why dying accompanied, with the possibility of saying goodbye and receiving spiritual assistance, constitutes a specific triad of care and natural obligations that should not be overlooked - even in times of health crisis - if we do not want to see human dignity violated and violated some fundamental rights derived from it
Subject(s)
Humans , Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Pandemics/ethics , Right to Die/ethics , Attitude to Death , Humanization of Assistance , Hospice Care/ethics , SpiritualityABSTRACT
Since 1978, when the first test tube baby, Louis Brown, was born, thousands of children have been born every year through in vitro fertilization. Many families keep attending fertility clinics in order to receive some treatment for their infertility problems and have a child. Children born in this way are worthy human beings. Their parents love them and devote themselves to their children admirably, showing real parental love. However, does this loving kindness justify, from an ethical point of view, any way of desiring and having a son or daughter? Is it really an act of human love to long for a child and satisfy this desire using artificial methods? Is it equally human and worthy to wish them choosing in vitro fertilization than to wish them through an intimate and loving relationship, in which the child emerges as a result of interpersonal donation? I answer these questions by analyzing the ethics proposal formulated by Rhonheimer and Carrasco de Paula. In short, only the intimate and loving sexual union between a man and a woman -as long as it is unconditional love- may be the dignity cause of the existence of a human being. And such union and unconditional requirement are absent in vitro fertilization.
Subject(s)
Bioethical Issues , Ethical Analysis , In Vitro Techniques/ethics , Love , Reproduction/ethics , Humans , InfertilityABSTRACT
Desde que en 1978 nació la primera niña probeta -Louis Brown-, se cuentan por miles los niños que vienen al mundo por fecundación in vitro. Muchas familias acuden a clínicas de reproducción asistida para tratar su problema de infertilidad y tener un hijo. Los hijos nacidos de este modo son seres humanos dignos. Sus padres los quieren y se entregan a ellos de modo admirable, un comportamiento propio de amor de padres. Ahora bien, ¿justifican éticamente estas bondades cualquier modo de desear un hijo y tenerlo? ¿Es radicalmente un acto de amor humano desear hijos y satisfacer el deseo de tenerlos a través de ese modo artificial? ¿Resulta igual de humano y de digno desearlos eligiendo la fecundación invitroque desearlos a través de una relación amorosa en la que el hijo surge como fruto de esa donación interpersonal? Resuelvo tales interrogantes de la mano de un sugerente análisis ético elaborado entre otros por Rhonheimer y Carrasco de Paula. En síntesis, sólo la unión sexual íntima y amorosa entre un hombre y una mujer -si es incondicional- puede constituir la causa digna de la existencia de un ser humano. Y tal unión y requisito de incondicionalidad están ausentes en la fivet
Since 1978, when the first test tube baby, Louis Brown, was born, thousands of children have been born every year through invitro fertilization. Many families keep attending fertility clinics in order to receive some treatment for their infertility problems and have a child. Children born in this way are worthy human beings. Their parents love them and devote themselves to their children admirably, showing real parental love. However, does this loving kindness justify, from an ethical point of view, any way of desiring and having a son or daughter? Is it really an act of human love to long for a child and satisfy this desire using artificial methods? Is it equally human and worthy to wish them choosing invitro fertilization than to wish them through an intimate and loving relationship, in which the child emerges as a result of interpersonal donation? I answer these questions by analyzing the ethics proposal formulated by Rhonheimer and Carrasco de Paula. In short, only the intimate and loving sexual union between a man and a woman -as long as it is unconditional love- may be the dignity cause of the existence of a human being. And such union and unconditional requirement are absent invitro fertilization
Subject(s)
Humans , Ethical Analysis , Bioethical Issues , In Vitro Techniques/ethics , Love , Reproduction/ethics , InfertilityABSTRACT
En la disciplina bioética, los años sesenta y setenta del siglo XX constituyen un punto de inflexión de grandes consecuencias para la vida humana y su dignidad. Por primera vez en la historia de la humanidad se lleva a cabo técnicamente y de modo programado una doble separación: la sexualidad de la procreación, y la reproducción de la sexualidad. Se crean artefactos y se diseñan técnicas capaces de impedir la fecundación e interceptar lo fecundado, y capaces de generar vidas humanas extracorpóreamente en laboratorios. Acontecimientos que van a constituir lo que algunos denominan la gran fractura bioética. En este artículo ofrezco una investigación bioética elaborada a partir de los escritos de Joseph Ratzinger, de los que se extrae una profunda reflexión acerca de la transformación ideológica que tal escisión ha provocado. Concluye Ratzinger que los efectos más perversos ocasionados los constituyen la deshumanización de la sexualidad y la banalización del amor procreativo conyugal.
In the discipline of bioethics, the 1960s and the 1970s constitute a turning point of great consequence to human life and dignity. Never before in the history of mankind had there been such a technical and planned double separation: sexuality from procreation and reproduction from sexuality. Devices are manufactured to prevent fertilization and to intercept the fertilized. Techniques capable of generating human life in laboratories are being designed. These events will shape what some call the major break in bioethics. This article offers bioethical research based on the writings of Joseph Ratzinger. The author draws from them a deep reflection on the ideological transformation that schism has provoked, agreeing with Ratzinger in that the most serious effects center on dehumanizing sexuality and trivializing procreative conjugal love.
Na disciplina bioética, os anos 60 e 70 do século xx constituem em um ponto de inflexão de grandes consequências para a vida humana e sua dignidade. Por primeira vez na história da humanidade, efetua-se tecnicamente e de modo programado uma dupla separação: a sexualidade da procriação, e a reprodução da sexualidade. Fabricam artefatos que impedem a fecundação e interceptam o fecundado. Desenham técnicas capazes de gerar vidas humanas em laboratórios. Acontecimentos que configurarão o que alguns denominam a grande fratura bioética. Neste artigo, ofereço uma pesquisa bioética elaborada a partir dos escritos de Joseph Ratzinger. Deles, extraio uma profunda reflexão sobre a transformação ideológica que essa excisão tem provocado. Concluo com Ratzinger que os efeitos ocasionados de maior gravidade se concentram em desumanizar a sexualidade e em banalizar o amor procriativo conjugal.
Subject(s)
Humans , Reproduction , Bioethics , Fertilization in Vitro , Sexuality , AbortionABSTRACT
In this article I discuss briefly a proposal for the recovery of the essential content of the concept of human nature through the careful attention to ethics which must be received by a terminal ill person in the last phase of life. I propose palliative medicine as a way to rescue the human mind in the life of dying patients to whom the fullness of nature and human dignity belongs. It's about recovering the original medical ethos through the exercise of the virtues through which staff can be trained to recognize the weak, the sick, miserable, the dispossessed are important, are worthy of medicine, used for science: are human and quite valid.
