Euthanasia A Look From Ethics And Morals

Euthanasia a look from ethics and morals

As students we have heard through our lives the existence of an ethical dilemma when it comes to supporting an antinatural procedure such as euthanasia. It is understandable because there are many foundations that come from the political, religious, legal and ethical-moral tradition.

If we see it from the Political Constitution from the preamble we read in the exercise of its sovereign power, represented by its delegates to the National Constituent Assembly, invoking the protection of God, and in order to strengthen the unity of the nation and ensure its memberslife. (Constituent, 1991)

Article 1 when referring to human dignity tells us: Colombia is a social state of law, organized in the form of a unitary, decentralized republic, with autonomy of its territorial, democratic, participatory and pluralistic entities, based on respect for human dignity(Constituent, 1991) But it is in article 11 where the fundamental right is most collected: the right to life is inviolable. There will be no death penalty. (Constituent, 1991)

In these three places we find the right to life and human dignity as fundamental assumptions to live in society, consequently we would already be facing an element that prevents us from determining the destiny of the life of our fellow citizens, no one can be the right ofdispose of another life without becoming a murdere.

Now if we see it from the religious point of view we find ourselves with a world of traditions that have contributed to the formation of morals that are lived in the different territories, seen from this point only God has the right to dispose that happens withThe life of a human being, and giving approval to euthanasia would be totally against these confessions and commandments of the Church.

Seen from philosophy as ethics of values, we find that both the professionals who practice it and the particular person who request it enter into a conflict where it must be answered if you end life to avoid suffering is LICITO. It is Wittgenstein, who despite having had moments of perdition and indignity in his life in which he came to think about suicide, without becoming specifying it, affirms that suicide -who, in the best of cases, contracts theEuthanasia- is the immoral action by antonomasia and also its three brothers committed suicide this made it reflect on these procedures, (Cioran, 2016)

In the same way Kant considers suicide as a monster, and the practical philosophy of this philosopher. A work by Roberto Aramayo mentions: it is soon seen that a nature whose law was to destroy life itself by the same feeling whose task is to promote the promotion of life would contradict that sensation itself and, thus, it would not survive as nature (Aramayo,2017). And it is clear that it could never become a categorical imperative that if there is any irresistible pain at the time you must take your life.

From the legal point of view it is even more complex, because we are faced with this support for good death but who are the material and intellectual authors of this fact. Euthanasia appears in the Criminal Code as homicide for mercy, and establishes in article 326 of the Criminal Code: ‘Homicide for piety. The one who will kill another for mercy, to end intense sufferings from body injury or serious or incurable illness, will incur prison from six months to three years ’.

In 1997, a person sued that article before the Constitutional Court arguing that as a homicide he should have the same penalty, that is, more than ten years. Given this, the Court considered that it was logical that this conduct had a lower penalty because it is acting within the compassion and solidarity criteria that human beings owe us, and that it is enshrined in our Constitution. In addition, this possibility is enshrined for patients with a terminal disease that causes intense suffering which cannot be relieved otherwise, and is claimed at the request of the patient himself. It is established that it must be carried out by a doctor, who would have no penalty because his behavior is justified, a minor penalty, from six months to three years. (LEYER, 2000, ARTICLE 326)

So that we have left, as professionals of the future, we must have a clear and arguing criterion about the reality of this issue and not what others propose only as a manifestation of that desire that our current society has to make it take away from suffering, and by that pathIt has come to all valid, the important thing is to satisfy the desires of power or money or happiness but without the slightest suffering or what is worse without the minimum work.

The reflection does not end and will continue to the agendYou could be facing this same situation and then the justification that many preach remains in question.

References

1. Aramayo, r. (2017). Kant’s practical philosophy. Mexico: Autonomous University of Mexico.
2. Cioran, e. (2016). About suicide. The old mole, recovered from: https: // www.The old mole.com/Topoexpress/Over-the-Suicide/Constituent. (1991). Constitution of Colombia. Bogotá: Leyer.
3. Read. (2000, article 326). Colombian Criminal Code. Bogotá: Leyer.