From Dawn till Dusk embraces the conceptual challenges often associated with Bioethics by taking the reader on a journey that embodies the circle of life and what it means to be human. The beginning and the end of life have always been an impossible riddle to humans. Bioethics does not aspire to unveil utter truths regarding the purpose of our existence; on the contrary, its task is to settle controversial issues that arise within this finite, very fragile and vulnerable life, (...) yet a life we still have to live. This book discusses thorny ethical issues that transcend time and are related to the dawn and the dusk of life: abortion and infanticide, genetic engineering, human reproductive cloning, the fear of death, rational suicide, and the right to die. The book's highest aspiration, though, is to both provide the reader with an opportunity to see the world from different perspectives and to showcase the irresistible charms of bioethical debates. (shrink)

Ever since the debate concerning euthanasia was ignited, the distinction between active and passive euthanasia – or, letting die and killing – has been marked as one of its key issues. In this paper I will argue that a) the borderline between act and omission is an altogether blurry one, and it gets even vaguer when it comes to euthanasia, b) there is no morally significant difference between active and passive euthanasia, and c) if there is any, it seems to (...) favor active instead of passive euthanasia. Therefore, while the distinction between active and passive euthanasia might be meaningful in terms of description, if it is considered to be endowed with moral weight and used on purpose of justifying one type of euthanasia instead of the other, it becomes morally problematic and misleading. (shrink)

During the last decades, in different places and under different circumstances, some physicians and other health professionals have supported state violence. The Holocaust is a prime example for how doctors can cooperate with the state to plan, give ideological support to and implement violent policies. As a consequence of the Industrial Revolution, people gained access to health promotion and health protection, not as an achievement of the welfare state, but as a tool necessary to maintain healthy and more productive workers. (...) Gradually, all social strata, employees and their relatives gained access to health coverage. Physicians as a group increased in number and changed the structure of their profession by establishing a symbiotic relationship with the state. Between the state and the medical class, different models of cooperation can be distinguished. In general, we can affirm that with the implementation of a public health system, greater interdependence among the state and the medical class was established. In the case of authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, the support of the medical class for violent policies depends on the degree of previous cooperation. National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union are two striking examples of totalitarian states in which strong public health systems and subsequent close cooperation between the medical class and the state can be observed. In both countries, violent state policies were quickly accepted and integrated into medical practice. Practices such as forced sterilization, murder of patients or experimentation with prisoners were prevalent under National Socialism. The abuse of psychiatry as tool for exerting power was common in the Soviet Union. South American dictatorships constitute examples of totalitarian states with weak previous cooperation between the medical class and the state, as they did not have strong public health systems. In those countries, support for state violence can be found, such as participation of health care professionals in torture or abduction of babies, but cooperation was not as strong as in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. In other cases in which no strong previous relationship existed between medicine and the state, authoritarian regimes were not accompanied by medical support for violence, such as in the case of the Rwandan genocide or in Cambodia, where doctors were persecuted and murdered based on their membership of the bourgeois class. (shrink)

Concern with elective-death decisions usually focuses on individuals' competence and understanding of their situations and prospects. If problematic influences on individuals are considered, they almost invariably have to do with matters such as depression and the effects of medication. Too little attention is paid to how individuals, as subjects, are products of both external cultural and social influences on them, and of internal efforts and needs that determine their subjectivity.

The current, utilitarian debate on the relation between euthanasia and happiness focusses primarily on the subject of dying patients. Where some utilitarians stress how euthanasia may relieve suffering in the process of dying, others emphasize the importance of respecting the autonomy of others to make decisions like these themselves. However, less attention has been paid to how legalizing euthanasia may impact the human decision-making processes of those still in a healthy and mentally sound state. This paper aims to shed light (...) on this relatively underdeveloped subject within utilitarian theory. In particular, I focus on euthanasia’s most contested form: active, voluntary euthanasia. I draw on Ernst Becker, who argues that moderate death anxiety stimulates people to work on ‘immortality projects,’ decisions that help them cope with the concept of death. Subsequently, I draw on several studies to defend the notion that immortality projects are indirectly conducive to happiness because they stimulate healthy decisions and long-term, human progress. Additionally, immortality projects counterbalance decisions that are based on an excessive drive for short-term pleasure. As euthanasia can make dying less painful, I argue it may diminish death anxiety to significant degree, and thereby also an incentive to work on immortality projects. This brings me to the conclusion that legalizing euthanasia is problematic from a utilitarian point of view, considering the observation that immortality projects are indirectly conducive to happiness. (shrink)