Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  MEDICAL ETHICS
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
100%
EN
The author in her article deals with the problem of modern dilemmas and ethica problems appearing in Polish medicine, showing its specificity against the background of other European countries. Among them, the biggest controversies are aroused by issues like: conscience clause, euthanasia, abortion, “testament of life” and in vitro proceedings. The author presents the most important attitudes, their sources and determinants (cultural, social, legal, financial, ideological, and religious). She also points out that essential influence on creating bioethical solutions belongs to doctors themselves as they have a significant autonomy in the area of moral choices. The author also emphasizes that many solutions to problems in the scope of bioethics, formalized in legal records and ethical codes, and which are obligatory in Poland, do not constitute optimal solutions for the whole or at least majority of the society. Hence, there are still numerous offers to regulate it alternatively. What is important, many of them constitute an attempt referring to modern current European legislation and even a direct attempt at transferring it to the underground. In the face of growing social and economic development of Poland and closer cooperation with European countries, their sanctioning seems to be only a matter of time today, and at same time a serious challenge requiring settling a kind of consensus between requirements of Polish society and the European Union.
EN
The area of biomedicine is one of the fastes developing areas of science and technology. The perception of its possible and expected positive or negative impacts results in the growing number of bioethical discussions in scientific community, politics and public. Their intensity, focus and used methods differ from country to country. The authors of the prologue have tried to map the state of the art and expected development of bioethical discussion in the countries of Middle and Eastern Europe. In the beginning, they addressed the bioethical experts with short questionnaire from 7 'new' European countries (Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia) and two 'old' European countries (Germany and Austria). In the end, seven experts have responded their questions (Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Austria and Germany) and expressed their expectations and difficulties of the development of bioethical discussions and institutionalisations in their countries. The authors summarize in the prologue the most interesting results.
EN
Legalization of euthanasia in several countries and attempts to introduce permissive law in this issue in other countries (including Poland) have made that euthanasia has been one of the most hotly debated bioethics and health policy issues of the past decade. In discussions about moral unacceptability of euthanasia, its opponents refer to the authority of Hippocrates and, in particular, to the famous oath which is ascribed to him. This article aims to find out if at all and in how degree such references are justified or, speaking more precisely, in which meanings attributed to the phrase 'Hippocratic medicine' it could be said that the prohibition against euthanasia exists and is still in force. In this article, three main meanings of 'Hippocratic medicine/ethics' are indicated, i.e.: (1) as a medicine which is aware of its moral responsibility; (2) as a medicine which has its background in Christian ethics, and (3) as a medicine known from works of a historic Hippocrates or of an unknown author of the 'Hippocratic oath'. Considerations undertaken in this article permit us to sustain the thesis that the prohibition against euthanasia exists and is in force in the second of the indicated before meanings and only in this one.
EN
The article discusses the question of proper relations between physicians and their patients. Medical ethics - the traditional one (Hippocratean) and the contemporary one which bases on bioethics - determines medical goals, appoints physicians' responsibilities, and assumes certain system of values which should be observed by physicians. There are differences between the two. The former is usually code, deontological or, in a way, paternal ethics (even when it talks about the patient's rights and autonomy). The latter on a metaethical level tries to describe the most important goals and means, it gives more room for individual choice, and it demands reflection, consideration and evaluation of situation both from the physician and the patient. That is why bioethics is not valued by physicians because it complicates matters, it does not give unambiguous advice, and it is not particularly well-known (bioethical issues have little share in educating physicians and contacts between bioethicists and physicians are scarce). The author shows that two bioethical standpoints (principialism and personalism), though considered as opposing, share the same goal (the patient's good, concern for the patient, non-instrumental treatment of the patient). Independently of which of the bioethical standpoints is considered correct, the knowledge of bioethical issues and ability to solve bioethical dilemmas enable to shape critical thinking and imagination which is the basis of so important features as modesty, care (or prudence), sensitivity, and responsibility. If persuasive power of ethics can be shown, then it is also possible to attribute such a property to bioethics. Realizing (and feeling) who the patient is, learning about asymmetry in relations between the physician and the patient can positively influence the physician's attitude. Given examples of reprehensible (instrumental only) treating of patients and the reasons behind the examples (strong, unjustified paternalism of physicians, arrogance, routine, incompetence, lack of sensitivity, bad job organization, economic issues set as priority) prove that what is an axiomatically assumed principle in medicine and medical professions has not been internalized by some physicians. The postulate that all physicians should be fluent in bioethical issues is exaggerated. The requirement that the patient is viewed and treated as a person is fundamental.
EN
The paper deals with the fundamental problems of Juraj Ciger's philosophical and ethical thinking. Its focus is on Ciger's understanding and explaining of the legacy of the R. Descartes founder of modern philosophy as an enigmatic philosopher. In this context it shows that Descartes was the clue philosopher for Ciger and that in a sense Ciger himself can be seen as an enigmatic philosopher. The author offers an analysis of Ciger's interpretation of Descartes' philosophical conception, which on his opinion was not dualistic, but rather trialistic. The impact of Ciger's thinking on the theoretical and practical (medical) ethics is shown as well.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.