Bioethics And Human Rights Relationship

Bioethics and Human Rights Relationship

From the second half of the twentieth century, the world went together with advances in different fields of health, technology, and others.(1) For so many years of discoveries, a series of rules and behaviors have been put into play which until today continues to reflect on the “good/bad” aspects that have an impact on society. These reflections on the good/bad give rise to bioethics and everything that is branch involves, various values, principles that will be detailed later.

Human rights are part of universal morals, ensures universal measures towards respect for rights and freedoms. (2) The relationship between bioethics and human rights is extremely important from my point of view because an ethical and reinforced evaluation of the behaviors involved in different areas of knowledge can be achieved. The right to life, personal integrity, free expression, health and many more are our insurance to maintain the best quality of life that can be obtained. The objective of this essay is to highlight the characteristics of bioethics, as well as its main values ​​and how they relate to human rights.

The greater purpose of an advance in areas of knowledge is generally a common good, an end that incorporates new knowledge into society that is useful for progress, whether scientific, technological, artistic; However, sometimes this end is achieved by ignoring ethical principles and human rights along the way. Therefore, there should always be a complement between bioethics, where the personal criteria of decisions to be made are coined, and human rights that represent universal protection.

There are principles that guide a person, country or organization, towards the resolution or justification of a problem and these principles are totally related to human rights.

Principle of charity: obligation to prevent damage and do good. The above is linked to the usual standard to promote good. (3) What a health professional or another can consider as a benefit is not necessarily for the patient, so I consider that possibilities should always be taken into account because a health problem covers many more personal aspects of a patient.

There may be situations where a sick person needs a treatment recommended by health personnel, however, the access possibilities of this treatment are low for the person so respecting the general needs of the patient, other possibilities where this is not The best quality itself, but considering all aspects is the best possibility for the patient. Doing harm is not only from the point of view of physical damage, you should always seek good treatment, understand the person and give all the necessary information so that it can evaluate the situation.

The above leads us to the second principle; The principle of autonomy: this is that each person is a determining car to opt for their own decisions according to their wishes (3), the above accompanied with all the technical information necessary to evaluate the best decision that approaches the maximum happiness , well -being for the patient. Bioethics as a discipline should direct behaviors to protect human values and rights.

In clinical research, the person’s decision rights must be respected, it must voluntarily access the treatment. In 1932, a study was conducted, known as Tuskegee, seen in class, where participants did not give any consent, because they were not given or dictated the information, what happened was attracting them by telling them that he studied was for people with people withbad blood, and that they were going to give medications to treat that condition.

In this unfortunate case they were not informed that they were going to be part of a study as subjects of experimentation and were attracted to the study that lasted many years for receiving free medical exams, food and others, it should be noted that these benefits for the people who were involvedThey were impossible to reject, this represents a very large moral fault, it was an act not only racist, it also seriously affected the participants who thought they were going to receive a treatment. (4) For examples such as the previous.

The principle of justice is a fundamental element, represents a balance. The above is related to the moral norm of making a fair and adequate distribution of resources, there must be equality for all. (3) Taking as an example what they call "forgotten diseases", we can analyze the importance of taking into account the regulations that defend the dignity of the human person.

"Forgotten diseases" refers when some disease affects specific, vulnerable and unfortunately populations because of this research on possible treatments do not advance and therefore no new medications are discovered and the disease prevails, but only in those specific populations.

In addition, as an example of the principle of justice and equal treatment, the person must always be respected, in terms of religion, color, sex, and others that can infer in a treatment, for example, there are religions where blood or other practices are taken are acts are actsBades seen by them, or people who a common practice such as bathing is not normal for them and not for this they should receive a different treatment but their right of expression, freedom of thought and adapt to what the person creates must be respectedit’s OK. It is very unfortunate that today these issues of equality must still be discussed and that there are usually cases where this is not respected, so that encompassing ethical issues is of great importance, and basic to achieve an advance towards a betterdeal.

There are situations where human rights and bioethics can have differences that make a topic a debate of whether it is okay or if it violates or not human rights. An example of the above is euthanasia;There are two types of euthanasia.

Passive euthanasia: the term is not very accepted, but refers to when a patient is suspended support equipment, that is, what is allowing himThere is a natural death. This can generate discomfort because sometimes the patient may not be aware so that making the decision of that natural death, so it would be "removing" the right of life and the principle of autonomy, however, teams may be necessary for more people who need it more, in addition to a very large prolongation of life is not a quality of life. (5)

Active euthanasia: It is when death is caused directly in order to end suffering.(5)

There is a conflict with this issue because, by human rights, the act of euthanasia compromises the right to life, physical integrity, human dignity, freedom and many more. On the part of ethics, it can be said that the latter protects personal autonomy, that is, the person’s own decision on his body, in addition to also involving values such as compassion and therefore must be understood to the personthat he is suffering, however for a health professional his moral is always "doing good" so that the act of ending someone’s life may not be considered as such.(6)

Analyzing the above, there is not a single answer to know if euthanasia should be accepted or not ethically, it is a very expanded topic with many aspects to evaluate. Thinking about the right to physical integrity that in debates is taken as an guarantee against euthanasia, a person who is in constant pain personally I consider that it could decide to end his life, if this frees him from pain, he would bemaking the decision to improve their physical integrity because it is not right, even knowing that death is not necessarily a treatment and then it will not feel, it is the exit that a person can make to avoid constant pain.

Bioethics also have autonomy as one of its principles, therefore, each person has control of their body and decides what to do with it, there should be no difference or limit because it is trying to end their life, if this is what this is whatThe person considers that it is the best option, where I believe that there is a conflict is because the health professional has a commitment to always do good and not inflict any abuse of people, so the decision of theProfessional, that is, this also has the right to consider whether what is done according to its values as a professional doctor.

Euthanasia is a very interesting example to represent the relationship between bioethics and human rights, because knowing both concepts and its principles values, the possibility of discussing if any strategy is opened, not only euthanasia if not any other topic that canarise, be approved as biotically correct, and also limit these with moral norms where both bioethical reflections and the rights of the people involved are respected both.

As final solutions, I consider that it is always vitalthat you can have a balance to know to what extent the end justifies the media.

It is necessary that as a society there are awareness of the different possibilities and points of view, in addition as future health professionals it is our duty to remain informed and trained to respond to situations that require a critical analysis for the best attention. It should be remembered that there should always be a good treatment, not only with a patient but did anyone who is involved in the day -to -day work, whether co -workers, bosses and others. Also, another important point, focused on microbiologists, these most cases will work with samples, fluids, etc;And these, even if they are not a personal consultation as a doctor would be, represents a person, therefore, with that sample a person with rights such as others is included and that must be respected and managed in the best way.

Bibliography

1. International A, Latin American R. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Bioètica debat tribes of the Borja Bioètica inst. 2009; 15 (55): 8–14.
2. Human Dudld. Universal Declaration of Human Rightsconvenio 0 Authentic Registry 1948 of 10-Dec.-1948 State: current Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted. 1948;Available from: https: // s3.Amazonaws.com/Academia.Edu.Documents/39345406/Declaration_de_los_Deres_human.PDF?AWSACCESSKEYID = akiaiwowygz2y53ul3a & expires = 153965618 & signature = zxa9d%2f9d2bjjzcs9gzdz8ppi14a%3d & responsive-concentrate-disposition = inline%3b steam
3. Ferro María, Molina Rodríguez Lucecarín, Rodríguez G william A. Bioethics and its principles. Dental Act. VENEZ [Internet]. 2009 Jun [cited 2020 Sep 20];47 (2): 481-487. Available at: http: // ve.Scielo.Org/Scielo.PHP?script = sci_arttext & pid = s 0001-63652009000200029 & lng = is.
4. Centers For Disease Control and Prevention. Tuskegee Study Timeline. National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention.(2016)
5. Hanne-Lore Schlüter. Bioethical aspects and human rights of euthanasia. 1993; 113–20. Available from: http: // resources.Virtual salons.com/ASSETS/Blocks/Bioetic Aspects-De-De-Euthanasia.PDF
6. Alonso Alamo m. On "Euthanasia and fundamental rights": Recension of Fernando Rey Martínez’s book. Rev Electronics Cienc Criminal and Criminol. 2008; 3 (10): 23.