PubMed · 11634764
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
F Robert. 1985. [Not Available].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11634764/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Progress in neuroscience leads not only to novel therapeutic opportunities but also raises several ethical problems. These problems are often subsumed under the term "neuroethics," of which the definition and purpose often remain unclear. We discuss the problems of informed consent, free will, sense of self, and personality in light of recent neuroscientific progress. Due to distinct categories and frames of reference, these philosophical-ethical terms cannot be limited only to the brain; the development of systematic relations is suggested. This accounts for the "special ethical position of the brain." It is concluded that only this sense can neuroethics account for the ethical complexity in neuropsychiatric disorders.
The Right to Die is a debatable issue and some basic notions need to be clarified to discuss it. Death needs to be recognized as part of human life. The goal of medicine is to avoid pain and alleviate suffering, to prevent premature death and when this is not possible, to let it occur peacefully. The concept of euthanasia is unclear, which increases the confusion on end-of-life topics. The term euthanasia should be used only when referring to medical acts performed to produce the patient's death, with the intention of terminating his/her suffering. It is what is usually called "active" euthanasia, which can be voluntary or involuntary. It is essential to understand the difference between producing and allowing death. This will permit timely decisions about limiting or withdrawing treatments, that can be disproportionate or that are only prolonging suffering. Limiting treatments does not mean to abandon the patient but rather to redefine his needs, such as pain treatment, prevention of complications, and relief of suffering. The ethic rationale for these decisions is the respect to the dignity of human life, and the estimation of proportionality or futility of each treatment. The physician's duty with the patient at the end of his life is to assist him in dying according to his values and to minimize his distress.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.