Sera (...) punished anyone who willfully fails to bring a person in jeopardy assistance, without risk to himself or to others, he could lend him or by his personal action, either by causing a backup. (Article 223-6 of the French Penal Code)
month's theme: the need for assistance to elderly at risk
--------------------- -----------------
Scene hypothetical. You are leader of a small railway station in two ways. On one track, a baby sleeping in a stroller blocked. On the other track, an old man in a wheelchair is also locked. A freight train coming and you can not stop it. Will you operate the switch to crush the baby or the old?
And now the same hypothetical scene, but the mother ran back and forth to move the stroller. This time, it is unlikely that you hesitate, you'll get the train on another track.
Over the centuries, it is likely that you would reacted very differently to a moral choice between an old and a baby. 300 years ago, killing a being that had not one chance in two of adulthood was less severe than an act of killing another human being, elderly or not.
Today, consciously or unconsciously, some will say that a person who "has run its course." For older people taken together. It would be "good" that they die of old age in order to "make room" for future generations. This reasoning is not followed at the individual level. When, for example, an aged man wall leaves her parents die in their homes badly maintained to qualify quickly for their inheritance, the disapproval will be considerable even if the reasoning is similar to the previous one.
The law of many European countries knows the offense of "failure to assist a person in danger." If you attend a scene where a person's life is endangered, you are an obligation to try to save as long as your life does not turn into danger.
In this reasoning, the offense will be made even if you had a reason not to stop. "I saw Ben he was dying, but my train was leaving and I had already paid my ticket "will not be a cause of justification.
In fact, this reasoning has never been applied in individual cases where the risk to life was immediate. We know that can save people dying of malnutrition, but nobody will be prosecuted because he did not pay money to an NGO. We also know that not smoking in cafes to save lives, but a court will not consider the absence of action against tobacco as non-assistance.
The same reasoning could apply to the elderly. If you see an elderly person collapsed on the sidewalk and you go your way, you could be convicted. If, as a researcher, you find a product that can grant extra years of healthy life, no judge will condemn you if you spend a few months to negotiate the best possible contract with a pharmaceutical firm. And this, even if the product is potentially useful for everyone, including the judge nearing the retirement age.
Another argument sometimes heard about the extension of healthy life is "that there is not enough room for everybody." The land is considered potentially overcrowded since Malthus died in 1830 in a land which then had just over a billion people. If the death of old age totally ceased tomorrow, it would take 50 years before the population of a country like Sweden has increased by only 35%.
We therefore many decades to solve this potential problem. And again, in an individual case, the judge would be hard pressed to hear an argument of type "But sir, if I had saved in 50 years, my children might not have enough to live by its fault. "
Why, only the direct forbearance is she now regarded as intuitively wrong? Here are some reasons:
- Out of sight, away from the heart. Inflicting death is perceived very differently if the victim is physically close or distant. It would be easier to kill by affixing a signature ordering an execution that firing a gun. And it would be easier by firing a revolver in front of oneself kill that person even completely tied up. Conversely, save by making an electronic transfer from your computer will be more difficult than saving money by giving if you see injuries requiring care but can not afford it.
- The degree of uncertainty Not sure that pouring money to an NGO or the scientific research, you will save lives. Note however that if you are sued for non-attendance, the judge will just type a response: "Anyway, I saw that this woman would probably die even if I called the rescue".
- The dilution of responsibility. Millions of people could act and therefore each has a natural tendency to act only if other people act. Thus, as has been demonstrated in psychology experiments (with actors), it is better to have a heart attack in a room with a stranger who feels compelled to act in a room with ten strangers where everyone will think it is for others to act.
But for the victims of our actions and our abstentions, directly or indirectly, they do not care just as you let them die without seeing them or seeing them. What matters is that our actions or our abstentions save lives or be co-responsible for deaths.
In this sense, although we will probably never condemned if we do nothing, collectively fight for a longer life and good health and fight against anything that causes preventable deaths including those of malnutrition appears at the very less as an ethical imperative.
Today, consciously or unconsciously, some will say that a person who "has run its course." For older people taken together. It would be "good" that they die of old age in order to "make room" for future generations. This reasoning is not followed at the individual level. When, for example, an aged man wall leaves her parents die in their homes badly maintained to qualify quickly for their inheritance, the disapproval will be considerable even if the reasoning is similar to the previous one.
The law of many European countries knows the offense of "failure to assist a person in danger." If you attend a scene where a person's life is endangered, you are an obligation to try to save as long as your life does not turn into danger.
In this reasoning, the offense will be made even if you had a reason not to stop. "I saw Ben he was dying, but my train was leaving and I had already paid my ticket "will not be a cause of justification.
In fact, this reasoning has never been applied in individual cases where the risk to life was immediate. We know that can save people dying of malnutrition, but nobody will be prosecuted because he did not pay money to an NGO. We also know that not smoking in cafes to save lives, but a court will not consider the absence of action against tobacco as non-assistance.
The same reasoning could apply to the elderly. If you see an elderly person collapsed on the sidewalk and you go your way, you could be convicted. If, as a researcher, you find a product that can grant extra years of healthy life, no judge will condemn you if you spend a few months to negotiate the best possible contract with a pharmaceutical firm. And this, even if the product is potentially useful for everyone, including the judge nearing the retirement age.
Another argument sometimes heard about the extension of healthy life is "that there is not enough room for everybody." The land is considered potentially overcrowded since Malthus died in 1830 in a land which then had just over a billion people. If the death of old age totally ceased tomorrow, it would take 50 years before the population of a country like Sweden has increased by only 35%.
We therefore many decades to solve this potential problem. And again, in an individual case, the judge would be hard pressed to hear an argument of type "But sir, if I had saved in 50 years, my children might not have enough to live by its fault. "
Why, only the direct forbearance is she now regarded as intuitively wrong? Here are some reasons:
- Out of sight, away from the heart. Inflicting death is perceived very differently if the victim is physically close or distant. It would be easier to kill by affixing a signature ordering an execution that firing a gun. And it would be easier by firing a revolver in front of oneself kill that person even completely tied up. Conversely, save by making an electronic transfer from your computer will be more difficult than saving money by giving if you see injuries requiring care but can not afford it.
- The degree of uncertainty Not sure that pouring money to an NGO or the scientific research, you will save lives. Note however that if you are sued for non-attendance, the judge will just type a response: "Anyway, I saw that this woman would probably die even if I called the rescue".
- The dilution of responsibility. Millions of people could act and therefore each has a natural tendency to act only if other people act. Thus, as has been demonstrated in psychology experiments (with actors), it is better to have a heart attack in a room with a stranger who feels compelled to act in a room with ten strangers where everyone will think it is for others to act.
But for the victims of our actions and our abstentions, directly or indirectly, they do not care just as you let them die without seeing them or seeing them. What matters is that our actions or our abstentions save lives or be co-responsible for deaths.
In this sense, although we will probably never condemned if we do nothing, collectively fight for a longer life and good health and fight against anything that causes preventable deaths including those of malnutrition appears at the very less as an ethical imperative.
--------------------------------------
The good news this month: one more step towards regenerating organs
------------------------------- -------
The good news this month: one more step towards regenerating organs
------------------------------- -------
An American company, "Organovo" poised to hit the market, research institutions, a device capable of producing human or animal tissues from cells. In the medium term, it is a step towards regenerating organs from stem cells.
------------------------------
------------------------------
• For more information: http:/ / sens.org , http://imminst.org , http://heales.org and http://immortalite.org . Voitr also pages http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/adventures-in-old-age/200912/would-immortality-become-overpopulation-nightmare about the Swedish example and http : / / singularityhub.com/2009/12/03/organovo-has-its-first-commercial-3d-bioprinter about Organovo.
• To respond or to receive or stop receiving the newsletter: info@heales.org
• Image: The rescue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rescue-Millais-L.jpg .
• To respond or to receive or stop receiving the newsletter: info@heales.org
• Image: The rescue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rescue-Millais-L.jpg .
------------------------------
0 comments:
Post a Comment