Alguns breves argumentos contra a eutanásia.

Summary

The speaker discusses the ethical implications of euthanasia, distinguishing it from other end-of-life practices such as distanasia and palliative care. They express opposition to euthanasia, citing the prioritization of life over freedom and the potential for the devaluation of human life. The speaker also raises concerns about the influence of medical panels on the decision-making process for euthanasia, particularly in public healthcare systems, and the vulnerability of less informed or marginalized individuals.

Takeaways

• 📝 The speaker distinguishes between euthanasia, distanasia, and orthothanasia, emphasizing the importance of understanding these concepts to avoid confusion.
• 🚫 The speaker is against euthanasia and distanasia, considering them ethically and legally problematic in many countries.
• 🛑 Distanasia refers to prolonging life through disproportionate means for terminal patients, which is condemned by medical ethics.
• 🏥 Orthothanasia involves palliative care to make the end of life more peaceful and is widely accepted both legally and ethically.
• 🔄 Euthanasia is the voluntary interruption of a therapeutic procedure to cause the death of the patient, which the speaker disagrees with.
• 🤔 The speaker questions the prioritization of individual freedom over life, arguing that life is a superior good because without life, there is no freedom.
• 💡 The speaker warns against the relativization of the value of human life, which can lead to a slippery slope of devaluing life under certain conditions.
• 🏛 Historically, the speaker points out that the worst atrocities have often involved the devaluation of human life, particularly for those deemed less valuable by society.
• 👥 The speaker is concerned about the potential for euthanasia decisions to be influenced by medical panels, especially in public health systems.
• 🌐 The speaker highlights the disparity in who euthanasia affects, noting that it's often not the well-educated middle or upper class but rather the less informed and marginalized.
• 📚 The speaker calls for a broader dialogue on the topic, considering the complexities and ethical implications beyond individual autonomy.

Q & A

What are the three concepts that need to be clarified in the discussion about end-of-life care?

The three concepts that need clarification are euthanasia, distanasia, and ortotanasia. Euthanasia involves the voluntary interruption of a therapeutic procedure with the intention of causing the patient's death. Distanasia refers to therapeutic procedures that aim to prolong life disproportionately in terminal patients. Orthotanasia involves palliative care measures to make the patient's death more peaceful and to reduce pain.

What is the speaker's position on euthanasia and distanasia?

The speaker is against both euthanasia and distanasia. They believe that distanasia, which involves prolonging life through disproportionate means, is condemned by medical ethics and is considered a criminal act in some countries. Euthanasia, which involves the voluntary interruption of a patient's life, is also not agreed upon by the speaker.

What is the difference between euthanasia and the disconnection of life support in the case of a patient with no chance of recovery?

The disconnection of life support in the case of a patient with no chance of recovery and full dependency on life support is considered orthotanasia, which is widely accepted by medical ethics and legislation. Euthanasia, on the other hand, involves a specific procedure that interferes with the patient's life continuity, such as the case of Terry Fisher, where the patient was not dependent on life support for breathing but for feeding, and the disconnection was authorized by the judiciary.

Why does the speaker argue against the prioritization of individual freedom over the value of life?

The speaker argues that prioritizing individual freedom over the value of life can lead to the relativization of the value of human life. This could result in a situation where life is only considered valuable under certain conditions, such as when individuals are productive or useful to society, which can lead to a slippery slope of ethical dilemmas.

What is the concern about legalizing euthanasia within public health systems?

The concern is that the decision about euthanasia might be influenced by medical panels and technicians, potentially affecting vulnerable individuals with little decision-making capacity, such as the poor or the uneducated. This could lead to a situation where euthanasia is not a decision made autonomously by the patient but is influenced by external factors.

What is the speaker's view on the importance of the value of human life in the context of euthanasia?

The speaker believes that the value of human life should be considered an absolute value and not be relativized. They argue that without recognizing life as an absolute value, there are no criteria to limit the relativization of life, which can lead to ethical issues and historical horrors related to the devaluation of human life.

How does the speaker differentiate between euthanasia and palliative care in the context of terminal illness?

The speaker differentiates euthanasia as an act of voluntary interruption of life with the intention of causing death, while palliative care, or orthotanasia, focuses on making the patient's end of life more peaceful and pain-free without the intention of causing death.

What ethical considerations does the speaker raise regarding the potential for euthanasia to be misused in public health systems?

The speaker raises concerns about the potential for euthanasia to be misused in public health systems, particularly when decisions are made by medical panels that may influence vulnerable patients who lack the capacity to make fully informed decisions about their care.

What is the speaker's stance on the importance of maintaining a hierarchy of values, particularly regarding life and freedom?

The speaker advocates for maintaining a clear hierarchy of values where life is considered a superior good because without life, there is no freedom. They argue against the confusion of values that can occur when freedom is placed above life.

How does the speaker address the potential for the devaluation of human life in discussions about euthanasia?

The speaker addresses the potential for the devaluation of human life by emphasizing the importance of recognizing life as an absolute value. They warn against the dangers of relativizing the value of life, which can lead to ethical dilemmas and a loss of moral boundaries.

What is the speaker's argument against the romanticized view of euthanasia involving a fully capable and autonomous individual?

The speaker argues that the romanticized view of euthanasia, where a fully capable and autonomous individual decides to end their life, is not the real situation in many cases. They point out that in public health systems, the decision about euthanasia can be influenced by medical panels, which may not always act in the best interest of the patient.

Outlines

00:00

😔 Ethical Considerations on End-of-Life Care

The speaker clarifies three concepts related to end-of-life care: euthanasia, distanasia, and orhotanasia. Euthanasia involves the voluntary interruption of a patient's life, which is ethically and legally controversial in many places. Distanasia refers to disproportionate measures to prolong life, which is also medically and ethically condemned. Orthotanasia, however, is the practice of palliative care aimed at making the patient's death more peaceful by reducing pain, and it is widely accepted. The speaker expresses opposition to euthanasia and distanasia, arguing for the importance of distinguishing between these concepts to avoid confusion and ethical dilemmas. They also discuss the difference between disconnecting life support when a patient is completely dependent on it and the case of Terry Fisher, where the disconnection of a feeding tube was considered euthanasia because it led to death by starvation, not disease.

05:01

🤔 The Hierarchy of Life and Freedom in Euthanasia Debates

The speaker emphasizes the importance of understanding the hierarchy of values, particularly the conflict between the value of life and the value of freedom in the context of euthanasia. They argue against placing freedom above life, as it can lead to the relativization of human life's value, potentially devaluing it based on conditions such as usefulness or productivity. The speaker warns of the slippery slope that begins with such relativization, historically associated with the worst political regimes and human atrocities. They also highlight the potential for legal euthanasia to be influenced by medical panels, which could lead to decisions being made not by the fully capable, but by those with limited capacity to decide, especially in public healthcare systems where the patient's autonomy might be compromised.

10:03

😢 The Reality of Euthanasia in Public Healthcare Systems

The speaker focuses on the practical implications of legalizing euthanasia within public healthcare systems, particularly concerning the most vulnerable populations. They express concern that the decision-making process could be influenced by medical panels and technicians, potentially affecting those who are less able to make informed decisions due to ignorance, poverty, or social exclusion. The speaker calls for a serious consideration of these everyday scenarios, as they are not merely abstract ideas but real situations faced in countries where euthanasia has been legalized. They urge for a broader dialogue that takes into account these complexities, beyond personal positions on the matter.

Keywords

💡Euthanasia

Euthanasia refers to the intentional act of ending a life to relieve pain and suffering, typically in cases of terminal illness. In the video, the speaker is against euthanasia, arguing that it involves a deliberate interference with a medical procedure to cause the death of a patient. The speaker distinguishes euthanasia from other concepts like 'distanásia' and 'ortotanásia', emphasizing the ethical issues and the potential for the value of life to be compromised.

💡Distanásia

Distanásia is a term used to describe therapeutic procedures that aim to prolong life through disproportionate means, especially in terminal cases. The speaker in the video explains that this concept is ethically condemned and, in some countries, considered criminal. It is contrasted with euthanasia, where the intention is to end life rather than prolong it.

💡Ortotanásia

Ortotanásia, also known as palliative care, involves measures taken to ensure a more peaceful death with the reduction of pain and suffering. It is ethically permitted and widely accepted, both legally and medically, as opposed to euthanasia and distanásia. The speaker uses the term to highlight the difference between actively ending a life and providing comfort and care to those nearing the end of their life.

💡Palliative Care

Palliative care is a form of medical care focused on providing relief from the symptoms and suffering of serious illnesses, improving the quality of life for both the patient and their family. In the video, the speaker mentions palliative care as part of ortotanásia, emphasizing its importance in reducing pain and making the end of life more bearable without hastening death.

💡Medical Ethics

Medical ethics involves the principles of conduct that govern the practice of medicine, including respect for patient autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. The speaker in the video discusses medical ethics in the context of euthanasia, distanásia, and ortotanásia, arguing against practices that prolong life disproportionately or intentionally end it.

💡Patient Autonomy

Patient autonomy is the right of patients to make decisions about their own healthcare, including end-of-life choices. The speaker in the video discusses the importance of respecting patient autonomy but also raises concerns about the potential for this principle to be misused or misunderstood in the context of euthanasia.

💡Life Value

The value of life is a central theme in the video, where the speaker argues against euthanasia on the grounds that it can lead to the relativization of life's value. The speaker warns that by considering freedom as a higher value than life, we risk devaluing human life and potentially justifying its termination under certain conditions.

💡Relativization of Life

The concept of relativizing life refers to the idea of assigning different values to life based on certain conditions or circumstances. The speaker in the video argues that this can lead to dangerous ethical slippery slopes, where life is only considered valuable under specific, often limited, conditions.

💡Quality of Life

Quality of life is a broad term that encompasses an individual's overall well-being, including physical health, emotional state, social relationships, and personal values. The speaker in the video touches on the idea that euthanasia discussions can sometimes be influenced by judgments about the quality of life of the patient, which can be problematic when considering the intrinsic value of life.

💡Legal Authorization

Legal authorization in the context of the video refers to the process by which the state or a legal body gives permission for actions such as euthanasia. The speaker expresses concern about the potential for legal authorization to influence medical decisions, particularly in public health systems, and the ethical implications of such practices.

💡Public Health Systems

Public health systems are government-organized healthcare services designed to provide care to the population. The speaker in the video discusses the impact of euthanasia within public health systems, noting the potential for these systems to influence end-of-life decisions and the importance of considering the ethical implications for all patients, not just those with the ability to make autonomous decisions.

Highlights

Differentiation between euthanasia, distanasia, and palliative care is essential to avoid confusion.

Distanasia involves disproportionate measures to prolong life in terminal patients, which is ethically condemned.

Palliative care aims to provide a more peaceful death with reduced pain for terminal patients.

Euthanasia involves voluntary interference to end a patient's life, which is ethically controversial.

The speaker is against euthanasia and distanasia but acknowledges the ethical acceptance of palliative care.

The patient's or family's right to decide on the continuation of life for a terminal patient is a complex ethical issue.

Disconnecting life support is considered palliative care, not euthanasia, when there is no chance of recovery.

The case of Terry Fisher is cited as an example of euthanasia due to the judicial authorization of disconnecting feeding equipment.

Euthanasia involves specific procedures that interfere with the patient's life continuation, even if terminal.

The hierarchy of values and goods, such as life and freedom, is crucial in ethical discussions on euthanasia.

Placing freedom above life can lead to the relativization of the value of human life.

The speaker argues against euthanasia due to the potential for life devaluation and the slippery slope it presents.

Euthanasia debates often focus on idealized situations, not reflecting the reality of public healthcare systems.

Legalizing euthanasia in public healthcare systems raises concerns about decisions being influenced by medical panels.

The potential for euthanasia to disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, such as the poor and uneducated, is highlighted.

The ethical implications of euthanasia extend beyond individual cases to societal values and healthcare systems.

The speaker calls for a broader dialogue considering the societal impact of euthanasia beyond individual cases.

Transcripts

Qual é a sua posição quanto a ianas em

pacientes terminais Ô Teodora eu acho

que de princípio nós já temos que fazer

uma diferença para para evitar alguma

confusão a respeito há três conceitos

que precisam ficar Claros aqui a

eutanásia a distanásia e a ortotanásia

vamos dizer a distanásia

diz respeito a procedimentos

terapêuticos que procuram prolongar Por

meios desproporcionais a vida de um

paciente eh em situação de

terminalidade a ortotanásia

são em regra os meios adotados para o

cuidado deste paciente para uma morte

mais tranquila com diminuição da dor são

os chamados cuidados paliativos e a

eutanásia ao contrário das duas outras

diz respeito à interrupção e

voluntária uma interferência um ato de

interferência em alguma algum

procedimento terapêutico

os casos mais famosos da da

jurisprudência dizem respeito a

desligamento de de máquinas equipamentos

por exemplo vamos tratar um pouquinho

disso eh e feita esta esta distinção

conceitual eu quero dizer que eu sou

contrário à eutanásia e a distanásia é

um procedimento em alguns países

inclusive considerado eh criminal

Ah e em todos eles a dist Ásia o

prolongamento Por meios desproporcionais

é condenado eh pela ética médica também

a eutanásia é um procedimento com o qual

eu não concordo e pretendo expor minhas

razões e a ortotanasia é aquela que é

eticamente permitida mas o senhor não

acha que nessa situação o paciente ou as

suas famílias não deveriam ter a última

palavra quanto querer a continuidade da

vida do paciente terminal no caso como

fica a liberdade individual nas nessas

espot nessas hipóteses cas bem falando

de terminalidade da vida e

especificamente a eutanásia quero dizer

a interferência voluntária em uma

determinada terapia ou a sua interrupção

com o objetivo de provocar a morte do do

paciente há duas situações aí que

precisam também ser tiradas da da

confusão se um paciente terminal está

ligado a equipamentos e ele

respira ou se alimenta com 100% de

dependência desses

equipamentos e não há atestado por uma

junta médica nenhuma possibilidade de

recuperação no atual estado da ciência o

desligamento dos equipamentos não é

eutanásia Esse é um procedimento de

ortotanásia que é largamente admitido

não só pela legislação como pelos

códigos de ética médica inclusive em

Portugal também no Brasil e em regra há

Muita confusão sobre isso isto não é a

eutanásia a eutanásia como o caso da da

Terry fiser o caso famoso o caso célebre

eh também na Itália esse respeito é a

Terry

Fisher não se alimentava sen não por

alimentação enteral E parenteral então

era introduzido o o o alimento para ela

mas ela respirava e conseguia sobreviver

sem ajuda dos equipamentos o caso dela

foi eutanásia porque judicialmente se

autorizou o

desligamento da alimentação do

equipamento de alimentação parenteral

Claro ela está em coma a paciente ela

não vai comer com as mãos ela não vai

comer alimentos sólidos alimento como em

qualquer terapia para paciente nessa

situação tem que ser introduzido através

eh e de procedimentos específicos

diretamente lá pro estômago dela quando

a justiça autoriza o desligamento do

equipamento nós estamos diante de

eutanásia porque ela morre não por

consequência da doença ela morre de fome

como qualquer um de nós morreria se não

fosse alimentado estas hipóteses de

eutanásia são aquelas hipóteses em que

há um procedimento específico que

interfere Na continuidade da vida

daquele paciente ainda que ele seja

considerado terminal o o problema

aí eu colocaria da seguinte forma

Ah nós precisamos ter clareza sobre a

hierarquia de bens e A Hierarquia de

valores que estão em

jogo na tua pergunta me opões liberdade

a um bem que nós precisamos considerar

como um bem superior que é a

vida até porque não há liberdade sem

vida o primeiro argumento que eu utilizo

em defesa da

ilegitimidade e da anti eticidade da

eutanásia é a confusão entre estes

valores quando o valor liberdade é

colocado acima do valor vida o segundo

argumento é diretamente ligado ao

primeiro o problema de nós considerarmos

a liberdade superior à Vida é também que

ela

envolve a possibilidade Clara de nós

começarmos a relativizar o valor da vida

humana digo de outra forma a vida humana

só vale nesta ou naquela condição a vida

humana só vale quando nós somos úteis a

vida humana só vale quando estamos

ativos qu estamos andando a vida humana

só vale quando nós temos

eh sensibilidade e capacidade de prazer

o problema quando nós relativizamos o

valor da vida humana então quando ela

não é mais um valor absoluto é que nós

não temos mais critério algum para

interromper essa

relativização e o que eu quero chamar

atenção é que todos os grandes regimes

políticos do mal ou todas as vezes que

nós nos defrontamos com os piores males

e os piores horrores da história da

humanidade nós estávamos diante de

situações que numa escala maior também

lidavam com a relativização do valor

vida quero dizer a vida humana só vale

mas para este grupo a vida humana só

vale para aquelas pessoas que são

bem-sucedidas ou a vida humana só vale

para aquelas pessoas que T capacidade de

produção a vida humana só vale para

aqueles que são ativos e úteis à

sociedade

enfim quando nós relativizamos o valor

da vida humana Nós perdemos a capacidade

de encontrar limites a essa que passa a

ser uma

ladeira em relação a esse argumento

H pedindo a a todos a que considerem uma

possibilidade para que nós possamos

engajar esse diálogo independente das

suas posições pessoais que levem em

consideração como se fosse um argumento

possível Portanto o seguinte argumento

quando falamos de eutanásia em regra nós

nos referimos a situações que parecem

até românticas

ah de uma pessoa que é um homem ou uma

mulher média com absoluta capacidade de

decisão confrontada por uma situação de

terminalidade da Vida em plenas Posses

das suas faculdades mentais e que decide

em nome da autonomia da vontade da sua

liberdade que é plena a colocar fim à

sua

vida esta não é uma situação ainda que

uma uma uma hipótese viável esta não é a

situação real quando nós nos defrontamos

com o debate sobre eutanásia em países

que lidam com sistemas públicos de

saúde em que a eutanásia muitas vezes

importará na decisão de uma junta médica

sobre a continuidade do tratamento ou

não de um paciente numa unidade de

terapia em

intensiva A grande preocupação em

relação às autorizações legais por parte

do Estado de eutanásia é colocar a

decisão sobre a vida humana não a nos

ombros daquela pessoa com plena

capacidade mental e plena posse das suas

faculdades mentais para tomar uma

decisão mas que a decisão seja tomada

por influência de juntas médicas de

técnicos

sobre alguém com pouca capacidade de

decidir eu não me refiro à pessoas que

estão em coma eu me refo me refiro a

pessoas ignorantes a pessoas pobres a

pessoas que já chegam no Sistema Único

de Saúde sem esperança e que tem uma

marca de exclusão social e de

vitimização extremamente grande não são

as pessoas da classe média ou da alta

classe média que são estudadas e que T

curso superior a grande massa das

pessoas atendidas pelos sistemas

públicos de saúde não são estas pessoas

com plena capacidade

cognitiva plena consciência do que

acontece mas pessoas que dependem

exclusivamente da opinião de outros

sobre o que elas devem ou não fazer

quando nós transformamos a eutanásia

numa autorização legal para que o estado

possa fazer isso dentro dos sistemas

públicos nós precisamos levar seriamente

gravemente estas hipóteses como as

hipóteses mais comuns mais cotidianas

porque isso não é apenas um uma

elucubração apenas um um elucubração sim

é um uma ideia abstrata ou uma

especulação meramente cerebrina Esta é

uma situação real em diversos países que

já experimentam a a eutanásia eh e nós

precisamos levar ess

Tá bom

obrigada