Legitimation of Euthanasia Decisions: A Philosophical Assessment of the Assisted Life Termination

N. M. Boichenko, N. A. Fialko
{"title":"Legitimation of Euthanasia Decisions: A Philosophical Assessment of the Assisted Life Termination","authors":"N. M. Boichenko, N. A. Fialko","doi":"10.15802/ampr.v0i24.295295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this article is to find out whether philosophical and anthropological studies of human nature affect the legitimization of decisions about human life and death, using the example of a philosophical analysis of the problem of euthanasia. Theoretical basis. Philosophically and anthropologically based situational analysis in bioethics is chosen as the research methodology, which reveals the legitimation of euthanasia as a complex and highly responsible moral decision, which should be based on both the consideration of all the patient’s special circumstances and the competent and adequate application of fundamental knowledge about the human being. Originality. From a philosophical point of view, it would be correct to legalize euthanasia, but under the condition of significantly limiting the cases of its application, clearly defining the conditions for its provision and strict control over its implementation. It is morally unacceptable to justify either murder or torture, so euthanasia appears as an attempt to avoid both at the same time. Conclusions. Specific solutions to practical problems often indicate the necessary direction for solving theoretical difficulties. Thus, making proper moral decisions about euthanasia requires reliance on fundamental knowledge about human beings, but at the same time it provides arguments \"for\" and \"against\" artificial termination of life. The basic principles of bioethics – autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and respect for the dignity of human life – serve as criteria for making balanced ethical decisions both in theory and in practice. These principles should be complemented by a coherent ethical, legal and philosophical position on euthanasia, which is achieved through legitimation procedures. Decisive for making a decision on euthanasia should be the strong desire of the patient himself.","PeriodicalId":42650,"journal":{"name":"Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i24.295295","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to find out whether philosophical and anthropological studies of human nature affect the legitimization of decisions about human life and death, using the example of a philosophical analysis of the problem of euthanasia. Theoretical basis. Philosophically and anthropologically based situational analysis in bioethics is chosen as the research methodology, which reveals the legitimation of euthanasia as a complex and highly responsible moral decision, which should be based on both the consideration of all the patient’s special circumstances and the competent and adequate application of fundamental knowledge about the human being. Originality. From a philosophical point of view, it would be correct to legalize euthanasia, but under the condition of significantly limiting the cases of its application, clearly defining the conditions for its provision and strict control over its implementation. It is morally unacceptable to justify either murder or torture, so euthanasia appears as an attempt to avoid both at the same time. Conclusions. Specific solutions to practical problems often indicate the necessary direction for solving theoretical difficulties. Thus, making proper moral decisions about euthanasia requires reliance on fundamental knowledge about human beings, but at the same time it provides arguments "for" and "against" artificial termination of life. The basic principles of bioethics – autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and respect for the dignity of human life – serve as criteria for making balanced ethical decisions both in theory and in practice. These principles should be complemented by a coherent ethical, legal and philosophical position on euthanasia, which is achieved through legitimation procedures. Decisive for making a decision on euthanasia should be the strong desire of the patient himself.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
安乐死决定的合法性:辅助生命终止的哲学评估
本文旨在以对安乐死问题的哲学分析为例,探讨对人性的哲学和人类学研究是否会影响有关人类生死决定的合法性。理论基础。选择以哲学和人类学为基础的生命伦理学情景分析作为研究方法,揭示了安乐死的合法化是一个复杂而高度负责的道德决定,既要考虑病人的所有特殊情况,又要胜任和充分地运用有关人类的基本知识。独创性。从哲学的角度看,安乐死合法化是正确的,但条件是必须大大限制安乐死的适用情况,明确规定提供安乐死的条件,并严格控制安乐死的实施。从道义上讲,为谋杀或酷刑辩护都是不可接受的,因此安乐死似乎是同时避免这两种情况的一种尝试。结论。解决实际问题的具体办法往往为解决理论难题指明了必要的方向。因此,要对安乐死做出正确的道德决定,就必须依靠有关人类的基本知识,但同时它也提供了 "支持 "和 "反对 "人工终止生命的论据。生命伦理学的基本原则--自主性、非渎职性、受益性和尊重人的生命尊严--是在理 论和实践中做出平衡的伦理决定的标准。除了这些原则之外,还应在伦理、法律和哲学上对安乐死采取一致的立场,并通过合法化程序加以实现。对安乐死作出决定的决定性因素应当是病人本人的强烈愿望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
66.70%
发文量
13
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Freedom as a Key Value of the Volunteer Movement The Interpretation of Husserl’s Time-Consciousness in the Reconstruction of the Concept of Anthropic Time. Part Two Philosophical and Anthropological Foundations of Psychosynthesis by Roberto Assaggioli Man in Digitized Urban Socio-Cultural Space The Concept of Anthropotechnics in the Social and Humanitarian Dimension
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1