Rafael Termes. Member of the Royal English Academy of Moral Sciences. XII-95
few months ago, Gregorio Peces Barba, in his usual ABC website, published under the same title as head of these lines, an amazing article in defense of the legalization of euthanasia. It is surprising, indeed, a great defender of human rights as Gregorio Peces Barba attack the most fundamental of those rights is the right to life, defending the right to kill. Because the reader would have had the patience to get through the article Peces Barba what I mean, what no doubt is removed in clean, under certain circumstances, the State can fail to protect the good of life, or , in the vernacular, to allow a citizen to murder another citizen. And that, respecting the people who say otherwise is not ethically correct.
Supporters of the legalization of abortion and euthanasia say it is not permissible to extend the claim to all citizens what they claim are just demands of Catholic morality. Not so. My position is not part of accepting full, and I accept the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, but that comes from something inside and different, which affects all human beings, that is, respect for human dignity. It is in these terms I intend to answer the teacher's reflection Peces Barba.
Euthanasia, although etymologically means "good death" or "death" is used to describe very different things. It can mean "letting die with dignity" as opposed to "therapeutic cruelty." Thus understood, euthanasia would be ethically correct, and repugnant to the dignity of the person engage in artificially prolonging life with disproportionate technical, just leave work to nature with the necessary care to alleviate physical and emotional pain of dying. But there is no disguising the layer euthanasia opposition to cruelty when trying to deliberately induce death by suppressing the normal livelihood and adequate medication, this so-called "passive euthanasia" is identified by default with "active euthanasia" by committee. Such a "euthanasia" can be: 1. Volunteer: patients, terminal or not, alertness, seeking to be killed to get rid of physical and mental suffering they consider unbearable, and someone intentionally kills. This euthanasia, the patient is treated as suicide and homicide equals agent upon request. 2. Involuntary: the elderly, mentally handicapped and babies with a defect, that can not give, or not give, consent, and someone removes the alleged intention to do good to them or society. This is homicide agreement against the will of the subject, or "performing" his will. 3. Professionally assisted suicide. The individual, sick or not, who, wishing to end his life, sought and obtained technical assistance to carry out his purpose,
My opinion is that none of these three kinds of euthanasia is ethically correct, because, yes, regardless of subjective responsibility, suicide and murder are always intrinsically evil actions. Wittgenstein, despite having been in life moments of doom and indignity in which even thought about suicide, suicide, says that, at best, you catch the action euthanasia is immoral par excellence, because it reduces man to the condition subject of instinct. And Kant, who frequently uses Peces Barba, judge the bomber as a monster, denying that there is some purpose to justify suicide. I do not agree, of course, the word that Kant assigns to suicide, because I think reaching the decision to take his life is worthy of compassion. But understanding the person who committed an error is not the same to justify wrong action. Therefore, I believe the legalization of euthanasia is unethical and less so is its legalization. Tolerance of evil can not reach that violates fundamental human rights.
What happens is that the proponents of the ethics of the third person, among whom I place a Peces Barba, judge the morality of actions only by their external consequences, worrying about what happens in the agent and forget that when someone, for example, made steals damage to stolen, but also done harm to himself by become a thief. In the same way the killer, albeit one not born or old, is himself a murderer. These thinkers permitting euthanasia, because for them what matters are the constants empirically observable sociological, that is, not what they should be, but what it is. And suppose that there is or will be, a majority will to argue that euthanasia is a good for man and therefore should be legalized. But the law is an act of practical reason, it is proper to reason and not of will order the man to a fair end. It is clear that acts of will, but the will is the efficient cause of the law, because if that were the fad could become law. The right to life, and their protection by the State belongs to the order of what should be the absolute requirements that are standard of reality and not reality - pure and simple, converted to a constant. If there is no must be given to man and not by him up, any human behavior, for example, state terrorism, no social structure, no political regime could be condemned in the name of justice. All conduct would be valid, if so determined by a particular social group.
The man has rights, and indefeasible rights, not because it's been granted a political body that gives them as they can be removed, the declarations of human rights as they relate to the fundamentals, there are other simply the recognition that these rights exist. Fundamental human rights arising from his status as a person. Let's be clear, not the definition of person who can make any positive law, but the concept anthropological and metaphysical - that is what matters in moral matters - referred to as Boethius says that a person is a individual substance of rational nature. Therefore, fundamental human rights, first and foremost the right to life, it is also indispensable, is beyond the reach of human discussion. Hence, although all wills found in a Congress - that would not be all - to approve the legalization of euthanasia, this law is not rational, in philosophical terms, the true law. And everyone is entitled, in ethical terms, to resist.
The argument used by Peces Barba to advocate the legalization of euthanasia is that it only deserves to be protected dignified life, identifying dignified life with healthy living. According to him, when health deteriorates to a vegetative state, terminal or excessively painful, life is not worth protecting and authorization can be justified by the state for disposal. But, would not, at least, impoverished life so unworthy? So why not eliminate all the hungry of the Third World by making "good" and resolving them pass their hunger concerns due to others? I fear that this identification of a decent life with health and welfare, would be the beginning of a slope toward conceptions is racist, Nazi-style, where life is weak is in the hands of the fittest.
Supporters of euthanasia argue is why "compassion" to the physical or mental suffering of the patient, stating that, in these cases, accelerate or result in death is a work of mercy. First I must say that the suffering is certainly an evil, but not a moral absolute, in contrast, accepted suffering can have a positive value for the affirmation of the human personality. Plato says that the life of wisdom is exercised in death, Epicurus himself says he can be worthy of the man sometimes reject the pain. This is true throughout life, as corroborated by many people without suffering would not have acquired the fortitude they have, does not have to not be in the terminal phase of life, and the pain can help get the death with dignity. But, secondly, it is more than likely suspect that after the "compassion" can be invoked to free the selfish purpose of causing the patient discomfort or just the old. In fact, in countries where voluntary euthanasia is legalized there are frequent cases in which has caused death without the patient's consent or even against their will, creating a state of anxiety among people elderly for fear that at any time, can be removed to avoid the discomfort around her.
I can testify
people in worse situations that sometimes demand the death, impaired live their life with a positive sense, because they are surrounded by loving support. And, almost always, the invocations of death, when they occur, are indeed distressing requests for assistance and affection. This is the true focus of euthanasia: to overcome selfishness, to provide the terminally ill, along with physical care, companionship and sympathy - "felt" - to drive to a natural death with dignity ".
0 comments:
Post a Comment