Euthanasia And The Dilemma Of The Ethical Code

Euthanasia and the dilemma of the ethical code

INTRODUCTION

The evolution of ethics builds a conceptual bridge between biology and human behavior. This is achieved by examining the cultural and biological feedback systems that inspire the evolution of social rules. In theory, a cyber process is in the heart of the development of ethical systems. This process occurs when biology and crop collide. 

The resulting conflict acts as a form of ‘informative feedback’, which tells people that there are serious problems that must be solved. In most countries, active direct euthanasia is a prohibited way to deprive patients’ lives, while their passive form is commonly accepted. This distinction between active and passive euthanasia has no justification, seen through the prism of morality and ethics.

DEVELOPING

The dilemma raised by euthanasia in general still divides society, an irritated issue that has been discussed in medical, legal, philosophical and theological literature. In ancient times, active euthanasia and suicide were issues of concern. Most philosophers and playwright.

Passive euthanasia was more acceptable, either by physical pain or for a deep respect for the nature of human life and what destiny brings it. Although innovations in palliative medicine can offer the best possible quality of life, there is still a minority of patients suffering from unbearable pain, whether physical or mental. For these patients, it is the main duty of the doctor to alleviate pain or other sufferings, provided that the doctor does not play any role at the beginning of the course of death, at least in countries where active euthanasia is not legally allowed.

Euthanasia was practiced in ancient Greece and Rome. Euthanasia was supported by Socrates, Plato and Seneca, although Hippocrates was against this practice, in ancient Greece Hippocrates, Pythagoras, Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Epicurus and others were indirectly occupied with euthanasia. In Greek tragedies, which are counted among the most important achievements of man, the reader is taught not only about music, dance and shows, but also about ethics.

The greatest of the playwrights of the tragedy was Esquilo, whom he referred as ‘the perfect’, the human and popular Sophocles and the eminent Euripides, who touched on the ethical aspects of euthanasia in his works. Euthanasia remains an issue in dispute in modern medicine and questions about their clinical need are still debated in literature. Ethical considerations with respect to euthanasia are as old as civilized society;Since the right to life is a fundamental human right, such considerations have remained at the forefront of the medical, theological and legal debate.

Most playwrights and philosophers of antiquity were against active euthanasia. This agrees with the philosophical and theological principles that life is sacred, given by the gods, and no one can violate it. However, in view of a deep respect for the rules of nature, passive euthanasia seems to be accepted for humanitarian reasons. There is a tendency to recognize that suspending treatment can be a reasonable and human decision, when it is taken into account that Hippocrates declared that, in seriously ill patients, medicine is unable to help. 

Jewish and Christian thinkers have opposed suicide as inconsistent with human good and with the responsibilities towards God. For more than 700 years, the tradition of Anglo -American customary law has punished or disapproved of both suicide and suicide assistance. For the most part, the first American colonies adopted the customary law approach.

Euthanasia in Mexico

In Mexico, only passive euthanasia in 3 states is legal: CDMX, Michoacán and Aguascalientes. In the rest of the Republic both active and passive is illegal. Currently with the government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, we are looking to promote the “the Law of Anticipated Will” in all the states that do not have it and that will consist of making legal euthanasia at the national level.

In the General Health Law the Art. 166 bis 21 prohibits this practice. Article 166 Bis 21. It is prohibited, the practice of euthanasia, understood as homicide by mercy, as well as the assisted suicide as indicated by the Federal Criminal Code, under the protection of this law. In this case, what the applicable criminal provisions indicate. In the Federal Criminal Code article 312 condemns it;Article 312. Who will help or induce another to commit suicide, will be punished with the penalty of one to five years in prison;If I will lend it to the point of executing death, the prison will be four to twelve years.

The state of Hidalgo has the Law of early will, however, this prohibits this practice in its article 2. Article 2. The application of the provisions established in this law are related to the anticipated will of people in orthotanasia and do not allow or empowers under any circumstances the realization of eutagy practices.

It is prohibited to supply drugs, medications or other substances in order to shorten the life of the patient;as well as applying treatments that intentionally cause death. The Criminal Code of the State of Hidalgo condemns it in its article 139. Article 139.- Who deprives another, by mobile pits, through notorious and repeated pleas of the victim, given the uselessness of all aid to save his life, they will be imposed from one to seven years in prison and a fine of 5 to 100days. In CDMX this practice is legal, but in the passive mode in the Law of early will for the Federal District in its article 1.

Article 1.- This law is of public order and social interest, and aimsthat they intend to prolong their life when they are in the terminal stage and, for medical reasons, it is impossible to keep it naturally, protecting at all times the dignity of the person.

CONCLUSION

It is true that the views on medical ethics have evolved over time. Doctors, those responsible for formulating policies and legislators must know the previous concepts and current points of view before reaching final decisions that must be within the limits of the ethical practice imposed by law. This issue considered that it has been staked due to several philosophical, religious, moral and ethical dilemmas, since many of those who handle and create the laws are very against this practice, I conclude that there is no difference between the ancient world and the worldCurrent, since although, in almost everyone is illegal and only a group of countries that are a minority have it legalized, so the minority is irrelevant when it comes to this.

REFLECTION

Philosophy and medicine are the greatest exponents about euthanasia in the negative sense, since the debate in ethics on euthanasia is as divided as the debate on suicide assisted by a doctor, perhaps more. They are often argued by slippery slope, backed by statements about the abuse of voluntary euthanasia as in the Netherlands where it is completely legal. The arguments against him are based on the integrity of medicine as a profession. In response, arguments are formulated based on autonomy and quality of life in support of euthanasia, underlined by statements that when the only way to relieve the pain or suffering of a dying patient is the terminal sedation with loss of loss of loss ofConsciousness, death is a preferable alternative.

Bibliography.

• Legislative Assembly of the Federal District. (January 7, 2008). Law of anticipated will for the Federal District.
• DW. (March 28, 2005). Religions and euthanasia.
• Government of Mexico. (February 7, 1984). General law of health.
• Hidalgo State Government. (February 14, 2011). Law of early will for the state of Hidalgo.
• Hidalgo State Government. (July 30, 2018).
• Euthanasia history. (December 1, 2012).
• Jiménez, J. AND. (2003). Euthanasia evolution.
• Nietzsche, f. (2010). The birth of tragedy. CDMX: Volume.