# data[].attributes.body
1. Tema delimitado: La eutanasia.

2. Definan una postura (a favor o en contra):

3. Redacten al menos 2 argumentos con evidencia:

4. Mencionen las fuentes de consulta:

# data[].attributes.body
Estamos a favor de la eutanasia como un derecho fundamental que permite a las personas decidir sobre su propio proceso de muerte ante un sufrimiento insoportable e irreversible.

Argumento 1:

La libertad debería suponer la posibilidad de disponer hasta de la propia existencia en pos de la autodeterminación, y de solicitar y recibir ayuda en esto. El filósofo Jean Améry ha argumentado consistentemente en favor del "derecho a morir" bajo la tesis ética central de que el ser humano se pertenece esencialmente a sí mismo.

Además, el concepto principal es la autonomía del ser humano y su libertad, donde el argumento a favor de la eutanasia va de la mano de conceptos como la libertad activa, la autonomía moral y la dignidad asentada en este concepto de libertad.

Argumento 2:

Entre los defensores se argumenta que la eutanasia es legítima en tanto y en cuanto se garantiza que las personas tomen la decisión de disponer sobre su propia vida y poner fin a un padecimiento insoportable. También se argumenta que es una vía para aliviar el dolor o el sufrimiento extremo, permitiendo que quien la solicite pueda morir con dignidad.

Asimismo, existe la necesidad de establecer una legislación que no tolere el sufrimiento estéril e inútil, y que priorice la calidad de vida por encima de opciones que ignoran la autonomía de los individuos a quienes la vida les resulta ya insoportable.

https://www.redalyc.org/journal/562/56242524012/html/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Elementos políticos para el debate sobre los dilemas éticos del suicidio médicamente asistido y de la eutanasia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Neste trabalho oferece-se uma reflexão sobre alguns dos elementos políticos que estão insertos nos problemas étnicos do suicídio medicamente assistido e da ...

# data[].attributes.body
Argumento 1:

Estamos en contra de la eutanasia porque estas validando menos las vidas y esto puede tener un impacto social fuerte ya que, al menos preciar la vida se puede hacer una idea sobre si realmente la vida vale la pena y no luhar por eso.

Argumento 2:

El impacto en la ética médica porque la etica del medico es salvar vidas pero con la eutansia se esta haciendo lo contrario y esto hace dudar a los doctores de que es realemete lo que se busca en vida.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WMA - The World Medical Association-Resolucion de la AMM sobre la Eutanasia

# data[].attributes.body
nuestra postura: creemos que la eutanasia debería ser una opción legal y regulada

creemos que nadie debería estar obligado a vivir sufriendo si ya no quiere hacerlo, ya sea por razones como cuando una persona está enferma, consciente de su situación y ha tomado la decisión de que prefiere morir con dignidad antes que seguir en ese estado de dolor , nos parece que quitarle esa opción es básicamente ignorar su existencia como persona, al final de cuentas, es su vida y su cuerpo, y solo el sabe su sentir si es que ayuda externa no ha dado resultados

argumento 1: si ya tienes derecho sobre tu vida, también deberías tenerlo sobre tu muerte

tenemos derechos sobre muchísimas decisiones que tomamos a lo largo de nuestra vida, desde cosas pequeñas hasta cosas grandes, entonces no tiene mucho sentido que justo en el momento más importante, que es el final de tu vida, ese derecho desaparezca,si una persona está en un estado de enfermedad, entiende lo que está pidiendo y nadie la está presionando, la decisión debería ser completamente suya. obligarla a seguir viviendo con dolor o sin dignidad, solo porque "así son las reglas", no suena a protegerla, suena mas a algo egoísta y no estar tomando en cuenta

argumento 2: ya existe, solo que sin control ni seguridad

la eutanasia pasa aunque este prohibida, la diferencia es que cuando no hay regulación, pasa en secreto de todas formas, sin acompañamiento médico, con riesgo de errores y sin ninguna protección para el paciente, igual que paso con el aborto durante muchos años, prohibirlo no lo elimina, solo lo hace que aumente el riesgo a terceros en esta situación, si se regula bien, con requisitos claros, revisiones medicas y procesos que eviten abusos, se puede garantizar que solo las personas que realmente lo desean y lo necesitan accedan a ello acompañados

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Other human rights imply a right to die

Without creating (or acknowledging) a specific right to die, it is possible to argue that other human rights ought to be taken to include this right.

The right to life includes the right to die

The right to life is not a right simply to exist

The right to life is a right to life with a minimum quality and value

Death is the opposite of life, but the process of dying is part of life

Dying is one of the most important events in human life

Dying can be good or bad

People have the right to try and make the events in their lives as good as possible

So they have the right to try to make their dying as good as possible

If the dying process is unpleasant, people should have the right to shorten it, and thus reduce the unpleasantness

People also have obligations - to their friends and family, to their doctors and nurses, to society in general

These obligations limit their rights

These obligations do not outweigh a person's right to refuse medical treatment that they do not want

But they do prevent a patient having any right to be killed

But even if there is a right to die, that doesn't mean that doctors have a duty to kill, so no doctor can be forced to help the patient who wants euthanasia.

The right not to be killed

The right to life gives a person the right not to be killed if they don't want to be.

Those in favour of euthanasia will argue that respect for this right not to be killed is sufficient to protect against misuse of euthanasia, as any doctor who kills a patient who doesn't want to die has violated that person's rights.

Opponents of euthanasia may disagree, and argue that allowing euthanasia will greatly increase the risk of people who want to live being killed. The danger of violating the right to life is so great that we should ban euthanasia even if it means violating the right to die.

The rights to privacy and freedom of belief include a right to die

This is the idea that the rights to privacy and freedom of belief give a person the right to decide how and when to die.

The European Convention on Human Rights gives a person the right to die

Not according to Britain's highest court.

It concluded that the right to life did not give any right to self-determination over life and death, since the provisions of the convention were aimed at protecting and preserving life.

English law already acknowledges that people have the right to die

This argument is based on the fact that the Suicide Act (1961) made it legal for people to take their own lives.

Opponents of euthanasia may disagree:

The Suicide Act doesn't necessarily acknowledge a right to die;

it could simply acknowledge that you can't punish someone for succeeding at suicide

and that it's inappropriate to punish someone so distressed that they want to take their own life.

Euthanasia opponents further point out that there is a moral difference between decriminalising something, often for practical reasons like those mentioned above, and encouraging it.

They can quite reasonably argue that the purpose of the Suicide Act is not to allow euthanasia, and support this argument by pointing out that the Act makes it a crime to help someone commit suicide. This is true, but that provision is really there to make it impossible to escape a murder charge by dressing the crime up as an assisted suicide.

Moral rules must be universalisable

One of the commonly accepted principles in ethics, put forward by Immanuel Kant, is that only those ethical principles that could be accepted as a universal rule (i.e. one that applied to everybody) should be accepted.

So you should only do something if you're willing for anybody to do exactly the same thing in exactly similar circumstances, regardless of who they are.

The justification for this rule is hard to find - many people think it's just an obvious truth (philosophers call such truths self-evident). You find variations of this idea in many faiths; for example "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

To put it more formally:

The person in favour of euthanasia argues that giving everybody the right to have a good death through euthanasia is acceptable as a universal principle, and that euthanasia is therefore morally acceptable.

This alone does not justify euthanasia

This is sound, but is not a full justification.

If a person wants to be allowed to commit euthanasia, it would clearly be inconsistent for them to say that they didn't think it should be allowed for other people.

But the principle of universalisability doesn't actually provide any positive justification for anything - genuine moral rules must be universalisable, but universalisability is not enough to say that a rule is a satisfactory moral rule.

Universalisability is therefore only a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition for a rule to be a morally good rule.

So, other than showing that one pre-condition is met, universalisibility doesn't advance the case for euthanasia at all.

How similar can situations be?

Every case is different in some respect, so anyone who is inclined to argue about it can argue about whether the particular differences are sufficent to make this case an exception to the rule.

Universal exceptions to universal rules

Oddly enough, the law of universalisability allows for there to be exceptions - as long as the exceptions are themselves universalisable. So you could have a universal rule allowing voluntary euthanasia and universalise an exception for people who were less than 18 years old.

Euthanasia happens anyway

Euthanasia happens - better to make it legal and regulate it properly

Sounds a bit like "murder happens - better to make it legal and regulate it properly".

When you put it like that, the argument sounds very feeble indeed.

But it is one that is used a lot in discussion, and particularly in politics or round the table in the pub or the canteen.

People say things like "we can't control drugs so we'd better legalise them", or "if we don't make abortion legal so that people can have it done in hospital, people will die from backstreet abortions".

What lies behind it is Utilitarianism: the belief that moral rules should be designed to produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people.

If you accept this as the basis for your ethical code (and it's the basis of many people's ethics), then the arguments above are perfectly sensible.

If you don't accept this principle, but believe that certain things are wrong regardless of what effect they have on total human happiness, then you will probably regard this argument as cynical and wrong.

A utilitarian argument for euthanasia

From a utilitarian viewpoint, justifying euthanasia is a question of showing that allowing people to have a good death, at a time of their own choosing, will make them happier than the pain from their illness, the loss of dignity and the distress of anticipating a slow, painful death. Someone who wants euthanasia will have already made this comparison for themselves.

But utilitarianism deals with the total human happiness, not just that of the patient, so that even euthanasia opponents who agree with utilitarianism in principle can claim that the negative effects on those around the patient - family, friends and medical staff - would outweigh the benefit to the patient.

It is hard to measure happiness objectively, but one way to test this argument would be to speak to the families and carers of people who had committed assisted suicide.

Opponents can also argue that the net effect on the whole of society will be a decrease in happiness. The only way to approach this would be to look at countries where euthanasia is legal. However, as no two countries are alike, it seems impossible to extricate the happiness or unhappiness resulting from legal assisted suicide, from any happiness or unhappiness from other sources.

Even if you agree with the utilitarian argument, you then have to deal with the arguments that suggest that euthanasia can't be properly regulated.

Is death a bad thing?

Why ask this question?

If death is not a bad thing then many of the objections to euthanasia vanish.

If we put aside the idea that death is always a bad thing, we are able to consider whether death may actually sometimes be a good thing.

This makes it much easier to consider the issue of euthanasia from the viewpoint of someone who wants euthanasia.

Why is death a bad thing?

We tend to regard death as a bad thing for one or more of these reasons:

because human life is intrinsically valuable

because life and death are God's business with which we shouldn't interfere

because most people don't want to die

because it violates our autonomy in a drastic way

The first two reasons form key points in the arguments against euthanasia, but only if you accept that they are true.

The last two reasons why death is a bad thing are not absolute; if a person wants to die, then neither of those reasons can be used to say that they would be wrong to undergo euthanasia.

People don't usually want to die

People are usually eager to avoid death because they value being alive, because they have many things they wish to do, and experiences they wish to have.

Obviously, this is not the case with a patient who wishes to die - and proper regulation will weed out people who do not really want to die, but are asking for other reasons.

Violation of autonomy

Another reason why death is seen as a bad thing is that it's the worst possible violation of the the wishes of the person who does not want to die (or, to use philosophical language, a violation of their autonomy).

In the case of someone who does want to die, this objection disappears.

Being dead, versus not having been born

Some people say that being dead is no different from not having been born yet, and nobody makes a fuss about the bad time they had before they were born.

There is a big difference - even though being dead will be no different as an experience from the experience of not having yet been born.

The idea is that death hurts people because it stops them having more of the things that they want, and could have if they continued to live.

Someone who makes a request for euthanasia is likely to have a bad quality of life (or a bad prognosis, even if they are not yet suffering much) and the knowledge that this will only get worse. If that is the case, death will not deprive them of an otherwise pleasant existence.

Of course, most patients will still be leaving behind some things that are good: for example, loved ones and things they enjoy. Asking for death does not necessarily mean that they have nothing to live for: only that the patient has decided that after a certain point, the pain outweighs the good things.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC - Ética - Eutanasia: Argumentos a favor de la eutanasia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This page sets out the arguments in favour of allowing euthanasia in certain cases. Should we accept that euthanasia happens and try to regulate it safely? Do people have the right to arrange their own deaths?

# data[].attributes.body
A favor

Argumentos:

1. Negar la eutanasia a quien padece de una enfermedad irreversible y degenerativa es sólo obligarle a soportar un estado de continuidad mecánica de una forma de vivir, privándole de la decisión autónoma de poner fin al estado de indignidad o de cosificación al que la enfermedad lo conduce

2. Creemos que así como cada persona es dueña de sus decisiones mientras vive, qué estudiar, dónde vivir o qué tratamiento médico aceptar, también debería ser dueña de decidir sobre su vida

John, J. A. C. (2023). La muerte digna como componente de un derecho a vivir en dignidad. Argumentos a favor de la despenalización de la eutanasia. Derecho Penal y Criminología, 44(117), 31-52.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=argumentos+a+favor+de+la+eutanasia+&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1775584519485&u=%23p%3DSb5wyqwHqYQJ

# data[].attributes.body
A favor de la eutanasia con ciertas regulaciones para facilitar una muerte digna ante ciertas enfermedades.

Alivio del Sufrimiento: La eutanasia se considera un acto piadoso para terminar con el dolor que no puede ser aliviado por los cuidados paliativos.

Muerte Digna: La dignidad humana implica evitar sufrimientos extremos, dolor insoportable y la degradación física o mental que conlleva una agonía prolongada.

https://www.univa.mx/agora/el-derecho-a-morir-con-dignidad-la-eutanasia-como-opcion-humanitaria/

# data[].attributes.body
Estoy a favor de la eutanasia porque como una práctica que bajo condiciones reguladas que permite respetar la autonomía del paciente y reducir el sufrimiento.

Argumento 1:

La eutanasia se fundamenta en el principio bioético de la autonomía, el cual reconoce el derecho de las personas a tomar decisiones informadas sobre su propia vida. En situaciones de enfermedad incurable, este principio adquiere especial relevancia, ya que permite al paciente decidir sobre su propio proceso de muerte de manera digna.

Argumento 2:

La eutanasia puede considerarse una alternativa cuando el sufrimiento físico o psicológico es extremo y no puede ser aliviado completamente por los cuidados médicos disponibles.

https://www.newtral.es/eutanasia-cuidados-paliativos-suicidio-asistido-y-otros-conceptos-de-la-muerte-digna/20190405/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Eutanasia, cuidados paliativos, suicidio asistido y otros conceptos de la muerte digna

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sus benefactores la llaman “muerte digna”. Sus detractores, simplemente homicidio. En torno a esta forma de morir hay varios conceptos que a menudo se confunden y entremezclan. Te explicamos las diferencias entre eutanasia, suicidio asistido, cuidados paliativos y sedación paliativa.

# data[].attributes.body
La eutanasia.

Postura a favor.

Argumento 1:

Llegar a negar la eutanasia a quien padece de una enfermedad irreversible es sólo obligarle a soportar un estado en el cual ya no puede pensar en seguir así mismo privándole de la decisión autónoma de poner fin a la enfermedad.

Argumento 2:

La tecnología o la medicina puede mantener a alguien con vida, pero sin esperanza de recuperación, la eutanasia ayudaría a evitar procedimientos, costosos y emocionalmente desgastantes para el paciente y su entorno.

Fuentes:

Descripción: LA EUTANASIA: UN ARGUMENTO MORAL A SU FAVOR

Eutanasia “medicina” del deseo | Apuntes de Bioética

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sumario:

En este artículo pretendemos formular un argumento moral a favor de la eutanasia. En este caso, se trata de un argumento al que podría denominarse "argumento razonable o plausible", es decir, uno del tipo que está constituido por enunciados despojados de valor de verdad, por lo que no se pretende argumentar a partir de razonamientos sólidos en el sentido en que estos son planteados en el ámbito de la lógica formal. Así, en primer lugar, se definen algunos términos que concentran relevancia en el contexto de la exposición, luego se formula la hipótesis correspondiente, y, finalmente, se presenta el argumento en mención.Consideramos que el derecho a una muerte digna es consecuencia lógica del derecho a la vida. En efecto, tener derecho a la vida no debe entenderse como tener derecho a la simple existencia, sino como el derecho a existir con una calidad de vida mínimamente digna. Ahora bien, todos sabemos que el proceso de morir es parte de la vida y que las personas tienen el derecho a intentar que los eventos que forman parte de su vida sean tan buenos y placenteros como sea posible. Las personas, consecuentemente, tienen derecho a hacer del proceso de morir algo tan bueno y placentero como sea posible. Por tanto, si el proceso de morir se ha hecho algo penoso, no puede negarse al individuo el derecho a reducirlo y, así, terminar con su vida si él lo desea.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LA EUTANASIA: UN ARGUMENTO MORAL A SU FAVOR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sumario: En este artículo pretendemos formular un argumento moral a favor de la eutanasia. En este caso, se trata de un argumento al que podría denominarse "argumento razonable o plausible", es decir, uno del tipo que está constituido por enunciados despojados de valor de verdad, por lo que no se pretende argumentar a partir de razonamientos sólidos en el sentido en que estos son planteados en el ámbito de la lógica formal.

# data[].attributes.body
Estamos a favor de la Eutanasia porque es una forma digna de morir en caso de tener una enfermedad en la que el paciente esté sufriendo mucho o se esté en un estado terminal del cual no se puede salir. Por otra parte, se ha demostrado que no puede ser una mala opción en países cómo España, Luxemburgo, Bélgica o Países Bajos, bajo la condición de que el paciente esté seguro y realmente tenga la certeza de que es lo mejor para el mismo.

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=9037138

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Luis-Espericueta/publication/388621797_Eutanasia_demencia_e_instrucciones_previas_alegato_a_favor_de_un_nuevo_modelo_en_Espana/links/67d91beb35f7044c9231d416/Eutanasia-demencia-e-instrucciones-previas-alegato-a-favor-de-un-nuevo-modelo-en-Espana.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
La muerte digna como componente de un derecho a vivir en dignidad. Argumentos a favor de la despenalización de la eutanasia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Autoría: José Antonio Caro John.
Localización: Derecho Penal y Criminología. Nº. 117, 2023.
Artículo de Revista en Dialnet.