Confessionality and bioethics, religion and medicine
This work aims to address the concepts of bioethics in the context of confessionality or faith of people. The main themes that have presented disagreements between these two branches are also presented. Throughout many years we have observed how the advances of science in the medical field present conflict with religious beliefs over time.
Bioethics tries to harmonize the advances of science in the medical and health field, with human rights and currents of social thought. By incorporating religious beliefs, it further complicates discussion and how to address issues that directly affect the health of the human being.
Bioethics can be defined as the discipline that attempts to relate human biological nature and the environment with the formulation of policies aimed at producing the social good in the present and future generations. This discipline aims to give responsible management of human life and that is why bioethics also emphasizes that research in the medical field must prioritize the interests and well -being of human beings above the interests of science andthe society. The latter attempts to achieve through the application of various bioethical principles within which autonomy, non -maleficence, charity and justice stand out.
On the other hand, confessionality at the state level can be defined as the profession of a given religion, which is granted a privileged place between the other religions and the State assumes the duty to contribute to its maintenance. At the individual level, it is the religion on which the beliefs of a person are governed and on which their actions are based.
It is then about finding a balance between both positions, through a dialogue based mainly on the values, principles and morals they share, the conception of the human being as a free and intelligent subject and in a series of commonly accepted moral norms, ofway to achieve the possibility of complementing faith and reason before the dilemmas raised in Bioethics.
Bioethics considers the following religious values relevant:
- The dignity of every human being above external and personal circumstances.
- Human life as a fundamental value and that cannot be arbitrarily arranged.
- Freedom as basic value.
- Love, the gift of giving no response.
- Human solidarity, predilection for the poor, the weak and the marginalized.
- Evil is not expired with evil, but with good.
These values are assumed by the human being, regardless of whether he is a believer or non -believer, which allows a dialogue in the field of bioethics and the main issues raised, considering that religion complements philosophy from what we must expect and theWhat should we keep within ethical values by ensuring total equality between believers and non -believers.
On the other hand, the tension between science and religions is accentuated when both become ideologies that are often taken to extremism, so philosophy around ethical values can generate that dialogue capacity between them, which many timesIt is blocked by the pressure of political interests and religious prejudices.
Next, the most discrepancy issues between science and religious beliefs will be addressed: abortion and euthanasia.
Abortion is one of the issues that generates the greatest discrepancy between both positions. It consists of a voluntary or involuntary interruption of pregnancy before the embryo is viable. There are mainly three types of abortions, spontaneous abortion, induced abortion and therapeutic abortion. In this trial, the last two types will be discussed mainly.
According to the thought of the Catholic Church, the origin of life is given since the fertilization of the ovule is presented, which is why the act of abortion is considered as a crime, in the same category as a homicide, and sin before thesame. This act is considered unjustifiable before the Church, even in case of danger of death of the mother or in case of being the result of a violation, among other things. This position takes on the main purpose of defending life as a gift from God, protecting every human life, even when it is the result of abuse and violence.
According to Tapia, R “from the scientific point of view, the human being, the person, is the result of the ontogenic development when it reaches the stage of physiological autonomy – viability outside the maternal uterus, since in the meantime it depends totally on the nutritional and hormonal contributionof the woman – and when their nervous system has acquired the structure and functionality necessary to perceive sensory stimuli, experience pain and acquire awareness and autonomy ”.
As can be seen, the definition of human being finds different positions from the scientific point of view that do not coincide with religious beliefs. That is why for the Catholic Church abortion compares to an act of homicide. For this same reason, the Catholic Church and the Pro-Aborto position will not agree on how to handle the subject.
On the other hand are the positions in favor of abortion in conditions of extreme need, such as therapeutic abortion. Therapeutic abortion occurs when at the medical level it is proposed.
In our societies there are many problematic situations that induce to visualize abortion as a single option, many of those pregnancies are a product of sexual violence, drug addiction problems, in societies of extreme poverty, with dysfunctional homes, many of them with mothers who have manychildren, teenage pregnancies, among others. These situations should be the main objective to be treated by states to prevent unwanted pregnancies and thus avoid abortion.
Children as a result of unwanted pregnancies trigger another social problem when it comes to the child, since they are going to be involved in a rejection by their parents, which is why they can be in environments without feeling loved, they can end up in shelterswhere you cannot ensure that they adopt them. A child has the right to a decent life, which is why we must guarantee the greatest well -being.
Additionally, the illegality of abortion in various confessional states is not synonymous with the fact that this practice is not carried out day by day. In Latin America, most countries are confessional states in which the practice of abortion is illegal, however it is one of the regions where this practice is most clandestine. Hiding does not grant suitable medical conditions and in most cases abortion becomes a problem at the social health level. A year thousands of deaths occur in these countries due to complications of a clandestine abortion, which is why it also becomes a topic of interest to bioethics. Guarantee access to adequate health care is not synonymous with an increase in the number of abortions, but it does mean a decrease in the number of deaths or complications related to clandestine abortions.
In this area, the State, using the principles of bioethics, should promote a culture of education, prevention of violence, promotion of contraceptives, promotion of sexual education from an early age and in cases of risk and danger to lifeof the mother to allow abortion.
Another of the issues that generates discrepancy between religion and science is euthanasia. Euthanasia according to Hurtado, m can be defined as the “voluntary and painless termination of a person’s life, which suffers from a terminal and incurable disease that prolongs its agony because of great physical suffering;becoming, from its perspective, into a better alternative than life ”
For religion, mainly the Catholic Church, human beings are made in the image and likeness of God. It is God who gives life and the human being has no power to decide on the life of others or that of oneself. In the Christian creed, one of the ten commandments expressly prohibits kill. The only one who can decide about someone’s death is God, since He is the owner of life. This is why the person is in deep pain and suffering, it is not correct to end life voluntarily. Another perspectives of the Christian faith about suffering, is that he purifies and prepares the person to receive God at the time of his death.
Before addressing active euthanasia, it is convenient to treat acceptable principles and values for Christian science and faith, which are associated at the beginning of a good death:
- Moral rejection of all forms of euthanasia imposed, without consent of the patient
- Ethical acceptance of the help to die passive, that is, without executing actions, procedures or medications that end the life of the patient and continues with palliative measures, letting the disease have its natural evolution.
Passive euthanasia occurs when the doctor does not execute any action that directly ends the patient’s life, but at the request of the patient he stops extraordinary measures and only ordinary are maintained. An example of this is that a patient in case of terminal cancer decides to reject chemotherapy. This what he does is shorten his life, but he will not end her.
According to Gutiérrez, C active euthanasia “includes all measures aimed at endpatient".
The positions in favor of active euthanasia are based on autonomy for decision -making and the quality of life of the patient depending on the discomforts caused by diagnostic or therapeutic procedures, pain control, among others, among others. The patient’s freedom is taken and his conscience and self-determination are respected in regard to his life. Even under the theological approach, human life is a gift of God that for its will was confident from the beginning to our responsibility, so that responsibility for the end of the same must be exercised.
Bioethics establishes guides to provide a better quality of life to the patient and to improve the duel of people related to him. Nowadays the discussion could occur around these aspects and how to promote a good die of patients, in places that promote peace, tranquility, accompaniment of personnel and family members, under the principles of bioethics.
On the other hand, bioethics must delve into issues such as therapeutic fierceness in health centers, a practice that implies a cruelty component and occurs when procedures with high probability of complications are used, in most cases they are invasive procedures that generatediscomfort in non -recoverable patients. The application of these extraordinary measures must be regulated, whose real benefit is unlikely in severe patients, and yet they continue to apply.
In conclusion, bioethics must be present in all aspects, doctors- scientists always seeking the well-being of the patient or the person involved. In issues such as abortion and euthanasia, cases should be evaluated from an objective perspective, without involving personal positions or religious aspects, but looking for the greatest well -being of the patient.
Leave feedback