Search

The article deals with the problem of the value of life in the context of its understanding in bioethical discourse. Two different approaches are used to discuss the topic. The first approach demonstrates a set of imperatives of human behaviour associated with the dominance of the religious component defining the value of life. It is called the concept of the “sanctity of life” and considers human life as a sacred act of divine influence on the existence of the living. The second approach systematises bioethical views that promote the supreme value of freedom and autonomy in making decisions by each individual, including those related to their life and health. It is called the concept of “quality of life” and represents a set of ideas that suggest to consciously influence the state of life of the individual if it is possible to improve it or if its further existence loses its rational meaning. Being in opposition to each other, these two main conceptual approaches create a problematic situation that stimulates scientific interdisciplinary research within the framework of bioethical discourse, forming its conceptual and categorical apparatus and expanding the worldview of the researcher and the reflective individual.

P. Singer is called one of the most influential living philosophers in the world, and one of the most controversial. The author of "Animal Liberation", "Practical Ethics", "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" created his own project of preference utilitarianism, in which he placed animals as moral subjects equal to man. In this, he questions Christian anthropocentrism: a human in his system of ethics is intrinsically no better than a chimpanzee or a dog. He recognizes the uniqueness of all species, speaking out against speciesism (discrimination on grounds of species). Singer's ethics is completely independent of religion. Raising issues related to abortion, euthanasia, animal rights, etc., the philosopher inevitably arrived to confrontation with Christian ethics and religious worldview in general. Religion, especially Christianity, plays a significant role in his works, since he considers many of the provisions of Christianity: the special position of humans in the natural world, the attitude to the sanctity of life - to be morally problematic. The article analyzes Peter Singer's critical theses on the Christian religion, including Christian ethics. The second section considers the responses of a number of modern religious thinkers to Singer's criticism of Christianity. In conclusion, the arguments of both sides are analyzed, their strengths and weaknesses are outlined, involving a broader tradition of secular-religious dispute. Conclusions are made about the validity of P. Singer's criticism of religion. Although said criticism is broadly integrated into the works of the philosopher, it is hardly a focus point - rather a tool to solidify Singer's position on practical questions like abortion, euthanasia, animal rights, etc. The negative attitude to religion has roots in Singer's early acquaintance with the Bible and the unhappy past of his family (two of the philosopher's grandparents died in concentration camps). The question of the meaninglessness of suffering largely determines the philosophy and practical ethics of P. Singer. Arguing with theologians, he most often resorts to the classical argument from evil. Singer's criticism of Christian religion is limited, reduced to the problem of the meaninglessness of suffering, the Euthyphron dilemma, criticism of the sanctity of human life, the "dominion" of man over nature. With the exception of a detailed analysis of the bias of Christianity against animals, the criticism is not original.

Ethical dilemmas in nursing are most pronounced in palliative and end-of-life care, where we meet the most demanding and complex needs of nursing care. The research discusses the importance of ethics, religion and spirituality in palliative care, from the perspective of three monotheistic religions and the emphasis on end-of-life ethical dilemmas and how religious beliefs can affect end-of-life medical care and nursing. The importance of ethics, religion and spirituality is presented in the research within three basic ethical principles, such as withholding and withdrawal of treatment, unjustified treatment and treatment with palliative sedation, and tried to justify its assessment in light of Jewish, Catholic and Islamic perspectives.

The purpose of the study is to identify a common theoretical basis for the study of human life as capital and unconditional higher value. Theoretical basis is based on the value-laden and revised structural constructivism, provided by the French philosopher and sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, critical analysis of the concepts of capital as the embodiment of social expectations, the biological concept of the value of human life, as well as the concepts of its sanctity. Originality. It is proved that one should not consider the value of human life as capital only but instead takes into account its different value interpretations, especially when forming the social identity of a person. Moreover, in each of the value systems, the value of human life can be recognized as unconditional, which does not prevent the coexistence of such different value interpretations within the framework of one social identity, which then inevitably becomes a multiple social identity. Conclusions. Human life cannot be considered as a result of integrating economic expectations into the concept of "advertising" capital: first, expectations may well be inadequate; second, expectations by themselves are not directly related to capital; third, expectations do not necessarily lead to development; fourth, one should clearly distinguish between the spontaneous "expectations" and the values that express people’s strong motivation as members of social communities. The multiplicity of possible cultural conditions that affirm the unconditional value of life indicates that this unconditionality is always relevant rather than absolute. The multiple social identities could be used to add value to the protection of human life, the affirmation of multiple social identities is a means of affirming the unconditional value of human life – it is unconditional in several alternative ways.

Social downshifting is emerging as one of the key strategies of optimizing and maintaining the quality of human life in view of the prospect meet one's death with dignity. The aim of the issue is to conceptualize the term “social downshifting”, by analyzing the relationship between social and biological aspects of death and the connection of a person's understanding of his/her death with his/her social self-identification. In this study the functional approach was used in its value interpretation, that is, as a method of value functionalism. If social downshift emerges as a social value, it can have different functional consequences - institutional, organizational, communicative. On the other hand, the functional choice of a person in favor of social downshift as accepting a new value of the state of limited functional capacity can have very different value reasons - biological (anthropologic, environmental, etc.) or social (ethical, religious, political, economic, etc.). Social downshifting is not an outgrowth of social identity frameworks, but rather their artificial (possibly temporary) narrowing. While there may be objective reasons for this, social downshifting is still the result of the subjective, conscious position being taken by an individual, with which he or she is replacing his/her previous, socially aggressive and expansive position. Changing of the social identification is the best alternative to the uncompensated loss of grounds for the individual’s ordinary method of social identification. The uncompensated loss of identity is essentially social death of a person - full or partial, and it is not surprising, therefore, that it often entails overt or covert suicide, that is, premature, artificially caused physical death. Therefore, social downshifting as a realistic variant of changing the social identity of an individual in unfavorable circumstances, acts as a safeguard against suicide. With successful social downshifting, the person acquires a new meaning of life and new, acceptable living conditions. Thus, a person is motivated to use the technological life-extension capabilities that global civilization offers.

My recent article, “The challenge of brain death for the sanctity of life ethic” (Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe), 2018, 8 (3–4), pp. 153–165) elicited five commentaries. In this brief response, I clarify my own position in the light of some misunderstandings, and discuss whether the definition of death is best thought of as an ethical question, or as a matter of fact. I also comment on the suggestion that we should allow people to choose the criteria by which they wish their own death to be determined, or their organs removed to be donated to others.

For more than thirty years, in most of the world, the irreversible cessation of all brain function, more commonly known as brain death, has been accepted as a criterion of death. Yet the philosophical basis on which this understanding of death was originally grounded has been undermined by the long-term maintenance of bodily functions in brain dead patients. More recently, the American case of Jahi McMath has cast doubt on whether the standard tests for diagnosing brain death exclude a condition in which the patient is not dead, but in a minimally conscious state. I argue that the evidence now clearly shows that brain death is not equivalent to the death of the human organism. We therefore face a choice: either we stop removing vital organs from brain dead patients, or we accept that it is not wrong to kill an innocent human who has irreversibly lost consciousness.

A Muslim woman in her sixteenth week of pregnancy was informed that her ultrasound scan showed spina bifida, and laboratory results confirmed the diagnosis. The child would have various complications and, most probably, would need medical care for life. With the consent of her husband she decided to terminate the pregnancy. Her decision sparked controversy among Muslim clerics in her community, sparking debate between those who would allow abortion for medical reasons and those who oppose abortion for any reason. This paper will review the philosophical and theological arguments of the pro-life and pro-choice groups as well as the Islamic perspective concerning a woman’s autonomy over her reproductive system, the sanctity of the fetus and the embryo, therapeutic abortion, and ensoulment.