Cuadernos de Bioetica最新文献

Medically induced death is a topic of particular relevance in today's healthcare world. The loss of the fundamental value of human life in society is leading to the emergence of new legislation in an increasing number of countries that permit the practice of euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. The perspective of pharmacists as healthcare professionals who directly participate by dispensing the medication used to end a patient's life has been very little studied. This paper presents a review of studies that gather pharmacists' opinions and experiences regarding assisted death, revealing a high level of support for these practices within the profession. However, in-depth analysis is necessary to uncover the real contradictions and ethical dilemmas pharmacists face in their role as healthcare providers.

In 2023, the Constitutional Court addressed the debate concerning the negative dimension of the right to life that is, whether an individual may request assistance from the State to die. The Court held that the recognition of such a right is not incompatible with the right to life enshrined in Article 15 of the Spanish Constitution. However, the Court also clarified that this right is not of a general nature, but rather must be situated within a specific context: the context of euthanasia. This context is characterized by the presence of physical or psychological suffering, which must, in any case, occur within the framework of a somatic illness.

Professor Ezekiel J. Emanuel, an expert on bioethics issues, has expressed his intention to refuse treatments that are not merely palliative once he turns 75. The arguments with which he try to justify it are that increasing the length of life does not imply a parallel increase in the quality of life, that the limitations of living from that age also represent a burden for the family who, in addition, are left with the memory of a more deteriorated image of the person and, finally, that defining a moment in which no more treatments are received may be a way to face with lucidity the proximity of death, making it easier to reflect on the meaning of life. This stoic decision, which is presented to us as prudent and altruistic, can also be understood as a utilitarian attitude, since it values the person based on their capabilities, disproportionate to the clinical situation, since it does not consider the prognosis or suitability of possible treatments, and individualistic because it limits the assessment to the subjective perception and anticipated estimate of each one. Even so, the ideas that appear in the text are suggestive and would justify its use as a debate instrument in bioethics teaching programs.

Artificial intelligence (Al) is advancing at a rapid pace, raising fundamental questions regarding its relationship with the human mind. While Al may far exceed human capabilities in specific tasks such as large-scale data processing, computational speed, or statistical prediction-it remains significantly limited in essential areas such as empathy, consciousness, moral judgement, and genuine creativity. The human mind, characterized by its complexity and flexibility, operates within emotional, cultural, and ethical frameworks that Al can only simulate, but never truly comprehend. Accordingly, this work proposes the ethical imperative of understanding and disseminating a realistic conception of human corporeality, a fundamental aspect of our existence which Al, by its very nature, will always lack.

Although, in principle, the Lancet article Commission on Medicine, Nazism, and the Holocaust, aims to provide medical students with a moral compass to guide the future of medical practice as a social retaining wall against anti-Semitism, it deals with the Holocaust not from a philosophical point of view, but from a pedagogical one, resorting to didactic strategies from a historiographical approach. What seemed to be a plea against the behaviour of the Nazi doctors' experiments becomes a justification of the positive law of the liberal democracies in use. However, what it ignores is of the utmost importance: that the majority of the regime's doctors were tried and sentenced for their iniquitous actions, and yet, in contemporary Western society, an even greater danger is very much present: techno-science, which, as it stands, can once again compromise the identity, dignity and very life of the human person. Going deeper into the causes, the target of our study, and preventing their repetition means rethinking human nature from the perspective of aristotelian-thomistic thought, which is the basis of the moral laws that derive from the natural law. This moral rearmament supposes assuming, from philosophical realism, the ontological order of being, the anthropological order of being-with, insofar as reason knows as the order of ought to be, which is transmuted into an ethical order thanks to the exercise of the freedom of the human person.

Focused attention and shared attention are in crisis, which hinders the achievement of the goals of the university institution. This article reviews the possibility of recognizing a right to attention and concludes that, in this specific context, the best way to recover attention is to prohibit the use of smartphones in class-rooms and libraries. After briefly presenting the advantages of such a ban, the article outlines objections to it, along with a response to each one.

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in minors with gender dysphoria (GD) seeking transition treatments, including puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. The developing child's brain exhibits structural and functional differences in children with GD compared to cisgender children, particularly in areas where sex differences exist. Brain development during childhood and adolescence is strongly influenced by sex hormones. During puberty, a significant reorganisation of the brain occurs, with changes in grey and white matter affecting cognition, emotional regulation, and socialisation. The administration of puberty blockers interferes with this process, which may have consequences on IQ, working memory,and decision-making. Treatments with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones have both benefits and risks. Among the benefits, reducing the distress of minors by preventing the irreversible bodily changes of puberty is often cited. However, the risks include decreased bone density, potential impacts on fertility,and alterations in brain development. Recent studies indicate that puberty suppression may affect cognitive functionality and executive functions. The rise in GD diagnoses has raised concerns within the medical community. It has been observed that many minors with GD have a history of adverse childhood experiences, higher rates of anxiety and depression, and, in some cases, diagnoses within the autism spectrum. Additionally, some studies suggest that the surge in gender dysphoria diagnoses among adolescents may be influenced by social factors and exposure to digital networks. In response to the growing controversy over the effects of these treatments, some countries have restricted or banned the use of puberty blockers in minors, citing a lack of solid scientific evidence regarding their long-term safety and effectiveness. From an ethical perspective, concerns have been raised about medical practices not based on scientific evidence, the application of the principle of the child's best interests, and questions regarding minors' capacity to provide informed consent. The importance of a multidisciplinary approach to the diagnosis and treatment of GD is emphasised, considering alternatives that do not involve irreversible medical interventions until the minor reaches sufficient maturity to make fully informed decisions.

The implications of the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in many areas of human existence compels us to reflect on its ethical relevance. This paper addresses the signification of its use in healthcare for patient informed consent. To this end, it first proposes an understanding of AI, as well as the basis for informed consent. Next, a fundamental question is briefly addressed: the free condition of the human person, subject both of ethics and Law. The conclusion proposed is that a use of AI respectful to the free nature of persons requires understanding it always as a tool in this case, in the service of healthcare. To ensure this is not a hollow assertion, it must be translated into a demystification of AI: It is necessary to consider and use it not as an authentic subject, a substitute for the person, but as a product or human development, taking into account that, ultimately, it is the human being who designs it and decides to use it and how. One measure that can help prevent AI personification is to ensure human intervention already in the early stages of AI system development. Trying to solve the ethical uncertainties posed by AI by requiring human intervention when the AI system is already developed and making decisions in the real life may be little more than a rubber stamp that purports to endorse what it cannot.