Ecuador obeys the loss of respect for the dignity of the human being
Introduction
Originally human rights protected man against the direct actions of other men, that is, they tried the safety of the most fragile for the abuses of more strong. Currently, the abuse that man does to himself has been considered.
Active participation in international obligation contracted before instances such as the UN, to strengthen the principle of equality of the human being and proposes human growth in a global way in the effective exercise of human rights, not having registered the universal statements of theHuman rights but rather by predominate their human dignity.
We will observe the working time that in the old one of this Peroriod the economies had given few signs of worrying about the right to life regarding their action in the field that could have a bad result in climate systems and phenomena.
International human rights protection procedures are a considerable mechanism towards a result of sustainable economic growth, in a very polite way and respecting human rights and the environment.
In the last world, as a realization of liberal ideas, democracy was imposed on theory and practice as the only possible regime for modern societies, especially from the end of World War II and the creation of the organizationof the United Nations, all nations that did not have democratic or non -democratic institutions, gradually modifying their constitutional frameworks and political structures to establish democratic models at least in their designs.
In Latin America we live in the last quarter of the last century the end of military dictators.
Finally, just in early 2011, the West observed with satisfaction the so -called ‘Arab spring’, with the fall of the totalitarian regimes of the ruling dynasties in Tunisia and Egypt and finally the quirky regime of Gaddafi in Libya, understanding that it is the beginning of the beginningof the democratic transformation of the Arab world, although there is no doubt that much is missing so that these countries can travel to truly democratic regimes that correspond to their cultural traditions.
Freedom of expression "right to die (with dignity)" is as revealing as predimedly incorrect . Since then, it does not have a precise consent because death, rather than a "right," is a "fact", fatally inevitable for the rest. In the influential North American law, the right to die has become a branch of the order, of recent, but of brilliant development, whose content, quite varied (since it includes constitutional, criminal and law of damage), refers to theRegulation on how decisions can be taken in order to refuse medical treatment.
Developing
Undoubtedly, the human being has been characterized because his life revolves around a social sphere, so a normative, economic and social order that is at the service of it must be established and that allows each man to cultivate his own dignity.
Therefore, human dignity requires that man act according to his conscience and his free choice;So men being more aware of their own dignity, can respect each other.
Thus, human dignity, in modernity, appears in an intellectual context that has overcome historical avatars, being located in a process of humanization and rationalization that accompanies the person and society. For which, when the reflection of dignity is made within an area that corresponds to a well -ordered society, reality is not described, but the duty of the same. Hence, human dignity serves as an initial reference, a starting point and also a final horizon, an arrival point, so it could be called a fair positive right (Barba Martínez, 1938).
This is, in Strictu Sensu, dignity only belongs to individuals, because it occurs in the person as a unique and unrepeatable individual subject, with a rational nature and, especially, with absolute and unconditional moral imperatives.
In Kant’s words, dignity constitutes a value for which no equivalent can be offered, that is, dignity has an absolute character because it does not allow negotiation, the dignity of the person exceeds anything that has a price, and it isThe irreplaceable value of a being with which you can never negotiate
Kant adds "dignity is the attribute of a rational being that does not obey any other law than the one he gives". Therefore, "autonomy is the foundation of the dignity of human nature or of all rational nature" hence man has dignity, no price. Under such a perspective, his categorical imperative theory is understood as the moral rule of action, since he indicates to the human being: “work in such a way that you relation to humanity, both in your person and in that of any other, always as an end and end andNot as a medium "
There are several historical conceptions around the dignity of human beings, for (Könisberg) ‘… the beings whose existence does not rest in our will, but in nature, they have, when it comes to irrational beings, a purely relative value, as means, and that’s why they are called things;On the other hand, irrational beings are called people because their nature already distinguishes them as ends in themselves, that is, as something that cannot be used as a means and, therefore, it limits, in this sense, all whim (and is objectof respect). These are not mere subjective purposes, whose existence, as effects of our action, has a value for us, but are objective purposes, that is, realities whose existence is in itself, an end … ’
With the "right to die", therefore, there, there to which we can conceptually call indirect active euthanasia (or double effect, palliative and shortening measures) and, above all, passive euthanasia (or limitation of therapeutic effort). Sometimes, it is used as synonymous "natural death" and/or "death with dignity", against a dehumanized "devices medicine" to which people can finally become victims rather than beneficiaries. His birth certificate dates back to the case in re quinlan, decided by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in 1976. Since that year, US courts have been resolving dozens of matters and legislators of most states have issued any regulation in this regard. At present, as Alan Meisel has observed, citing the judgment of the Supreme Court of California 3, there is “a growing judicial consensus that uniformly recognizes the right of the patient to control his body integrity as the essential factor in determining the balance of interest".
Dignity and human rights
Human dignity has been permanently present in legal norms at every moment of humanity development. From the dignity conceived as a social status, it was reflected in social norms that ended up giving content to legal norms;However, the issue of human dignity became greater importance for the law from the development of the dignity of the person as an intrinsic value of individuals, and therefore their respect and protection in social relations took a special dimension to thebe considered first as a moral duty and subsequently as a legal duty.
Dignity and bioethics
At present, one of the areas of social reflection in which the idea of human dignity is most important is in that of bioethics. Discipline born just in the seventies and pretends to be an ethical reflection space to deal with new human abilities to interact with the living environment, BIOS, thanks to the development of science and technology, being able to affect in such a way that it putsat risk the survival of humanity itself. That is why the recognized as father of Bioethics, Van Rensselaer Potter titled his work Bioethics, Bridge to the Future.
While the Hellenic world had a problem with the finitude of life, the world of Christianity was placed differently to death and, therefore, before life itself: what we do in this life of the material conditions whatIt will happen after death. For the Christian faith, the areté becomes the will of God, in the divine lex, which unlike the Lex Naturalis is lex aeterna.
Thus a new vision of the world, man and life and death were generated with Christianity and permeate in the different beliefs and convictions we have until today. With the agreement of the rationalist positions the idea of the natural order changed and was disconnected from the will of God until reaching postmodernity the idea of God began to fade with existentialist philosophers and man without faith was left alone before death,Faced with nothing.
conclusion
First, the terminological hesitations we have found in Spanish regulations require some clarification. Doubts about words usually express doubts about concepts. The center of gravity of all legal denominations are the words "dignity" and "death". Well, we have already ruled out the expression "right to die with dignity" because it is equivocal and includes in its meaning some meaning contrary to order. To the extent that this new right gives its authentic holders judicially required whose content, in addition, it can freely modulate, that is, since it is a genuine subjective right, the expression "right" to the most objective notion is preferableof "guarantee", which underlines the technique of protection and not so much the will of the holder.
Regardless of the conceptions with which it has been tried to define or explain it, there is no doubt that in dignity respects the human person rests. And here then certain details would be possible, because the legal system must keep in mind the different levels in which that respect is structured:
- Respect by the State.
- Respect by third parties.
- Respect for self-dignity.
The concept of dignity inaugurated its modern use in response to the individual’s need to defend themselves from the State and public authorities in general, at a time when they were held and exercised by absolute title. On the one hand, it was about stopping any act or attack of the State against the dignity of the individual, under penalty of incurring legal responsibility, and on the other, of establishing the obligation to benefit the State to take measures with a view to avoiding situations inthose that could be attentive against human dignity.
However, the defense of dignity by the State does not exempt persons deprived of the duty to recognize and respect others their status as worthy. Therefore, when we talk about dignity, it is no longer just a condition that leads to the recognition of a series of rights of the individual against the State, but also a duty imposed on individuals by the latter so that human dignity is not violatedfor third -party actions or omissions, from which it is inferred that two dimensions can be highlighted in terms of the legal protection of dignity: a vertical, which protects the person in front of the State, and another horizontal, which protects it against individuals. Therefore, of the aforementioned levels only the first two directly concern the right that regulates intersubjective or social relationships, and not subjective or the subject with themselves, except when the person is less or suffers some type of disability provided for in the law.
Nor is the individual exonerated from the duty to respect his own dignity, only that this cannot be legally forced since with respect to himself the individual only contracts a duty or obligation of a moral type, and not legal. Balandro rightly states that the biggest problems of demarcation do not occur when dignity is attacked by the State or is not respected by third parties, but when it comes to specifying the scope of respect for dignity itself 33. This is particularly important when analyzing the respect of the right to life, in the first place, because there are situations in which it is the holder of the right itself that threatens his life because he is empowered to do so because it is something of his, on which his freedom extends;and, secondly, because in cases such as assisted suicide, in which it is difficult to determine as far as the violation of the right to life is perpetrated or obeys the will of its owner or that of a third party.
Leave feedback