La eutanasia como antídoto del suicidio

  1. José Martin Amenabar Beitia
Zeitschrift:
Revista de bioética y derecho: publicación del Máster en bioética y derecho

ISSN: 1886-5887

Datum der Publikation: 2019

Nummer: 46

Seiten: 133-147

Art: Artikel

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen Access editor

Andere Publikationen in: Revista de bioética y derecho: publicación del Máster en bioética y derecho

Zusammenfassung

This paper begins by reflecting on people´s awareness of mortality and how they lie in the antechamber of their own death. It refers to several specific circumstances and motivations which lead to suicide. On the other hand, reference is made to Cioran´s ideas and philosophical stance on suicide as an existential resource which enables people to face life in better conditions. Similarly, euthanasia is considered, especially bearing in mind its close relationship to suicide, and it is observed as being the legal option of achieving that aim. This, however, can imply a flight from suicide for some sufferers while its prohibition can precipitate others towards definite self-destruction so as to escape from unbearable suffering. It is contrasted by using two illustrative cases

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • RLE J. y ALTERMAN R. 1999, “Surgical options in Parkinson's disease”. Med. Clin. North. Am. 83, pp. 483–98.
  • BOSTROM N. 2005, “In Defense of Posthuman Dignity”. Bioethics. 19, 3, pp. 202–214.
  • CASABONA C. M. 2013, “Consideraciones jurídicas sobre los procedimientos experimentales de mejora (enhancement) en neurociências”. Percurso Acadêmico, Belo Horizonte, v. 3, n. 5, pp 80-107.
  • CLAUSEN J. 2009, “Man, machine and in between”. Nature. 457, (7233): pp.1080–1.
  • DAVIDSON D. 1963, “Actions, reasons, and causes”. Journal of Philosophy 60 (23), pp. 685-700.
  • FLORIDI L. y TADDEO M. 2016, “What is data ethics?” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, vol. 374, no. 2083 20160360.
  • GIFFORD R. et al. 2008, “Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs”. Audiol Neurootol. 13(3),pp. 193-205.
  • HAGGARD P. y TSAKIRIS M. 2009, “The Experience of Agency Feelings, Judgments, and Responsibility”. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(4), pp. 242–246.
  • HIL R. 2016, “What an algorithm is?” Philosophy and Technology 29, 1, pp. 35-59.
  • HOCHBERG. L. et al. 2006, “Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia”. Nature, 442, 7099, pp. 164–71.
  • IENCA M. y ANDORNO R. 2017, “Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology”. Life Sci Soc Policy. 13, (1) 5.
  • LAAT P. 2018, “Algorithmic decision-making based on machine learning from Big Data: Can transparency restore accountability?” Philosophy & Technology 31, 4, pp 525–541.
  • LIPTON Z. 2018 “The mythos of model interpretability” Queue - Machine Learning 16 3 pp 1-27.
  • MASHAT M., LI G. y ZHANG D. 2017, “Human-to-human closed-loop control based on brain-to-brain interface and muscle-to-muscle interface”. Scientific Reports. 7, 11001.
  • MELE A. 1987, “Intentional Action and Wayward Causal Chains: The Problem of Tertiary Waywardness”. Philosophical Studies. 51, 1,pp. 55-60.
  • MONASTERIO ASTOBIZA A. 2017, “Ética algorítmica: Implicaciones éticas de una sociedad cada vez más gobernada por algoritmos”. Dilemata, 24, pp. 185-217.
  • O´NEIL C. 2016, Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. New York. Crown Publishing Group.
  • PACHERIE E. 2007, “The sense of control and the sense of agency”. Psyche, 13(1), pp. 1–30.
  • PENALOZA C. y NISHIO S. 2018, “BMI control of a third arm for multitasking”. Science Robotics. 3, 20, eaat1228.
  • PIEDIMONTE A. et al. 2016, “From intention to perception: The case of anosognosia for hemiplegia”. Neuropsychologia. 1, 87, pp. 43-53.
  • PONCE P., MOLINA A., BALDERAS D. y GRAMMATIKOU D. 2014, “Brain Computer Interfaces for Cerebral Palsy” En Cerebral Palsy - Challenges for the Future (eds) Emira Svraka InTech.
  • RAO R. et al. 2014, “A Direct Brain-to-Brain Interface in Humans”. PLOS One. 5, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111332.
  • REAGLE J. (2019), Hacking Life: Systematized Living and Its Discontents. Cam. Mass. MIT Press.
  • SEARLE J. 1983, Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • SCHERMER M. 2011, “Ethical issues in deep brain stimulation”. Front Integr Neurosci. 5: 17.
  • SNOW J. 2015, “Entering the Matrix: the Challenge of Regulating Radical Leveling Technologies” Tesis de Máster, Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School.
  • SYNOFZIK M., VOSGERAU G. y NEWEN, A. 2008, “Beyond the comparator model: A multifactorial two-step account of agency”. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, pp. 219–239.
  • TRAPP N.T., XIONG W. y CONWAY C.R. 2018, “Neurostimulation Therapies”. En: Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  • WEXLER A. 2017, “The Social Context of "Do-It-Yourself" Brain Stimulation: Neurohackers, Biohackers, and Lifehackers” Front Hum Neurosci. 10; 11:224.
  • WODLINGER B. et al. 2015, “Ten-dimensional anthropomorphic arm control in a human brain−machine interface: difficulties, solutions, and limitations,” Journal of Neural Engineering. 12, 1, 16011.
  • WOLKENSTEIN A., Jox R. y Friedrich O. 2018, “Brain–Computer Interfaces Lessons to Be Learned from the Ethics of Algorithms”. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 27, 4, pp. 635–646.
  • YOO S. et al. 2013, “Non-Invasive Brain-to-Brain Interface (BBI): Establishing Functional Links between Two Brains”. PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060410.
  • YUSTE R. et al. 2017, “Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI”. Nature. 551(7679), pp. 159–63.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet