Riccioni Luigi, Busca Maria Teresa, Busatta Lucia, Orsi Luciano, Gristina Giuseppe R
UO Centro di Rianimazione 1, Ospedale San Camillo-Forlanini, Roma - Gruppo di Studio per la Bioetica, Società Italiana di Anestesia Analgesia Rianimazione e Terapia Intensiva (SIAARTI).
Master in Bioetica e Consulenza in Etica Clinica, Dipartimento di Filosofia e Scienze dell'Educazione, Università di Torino.
Recenti Prog Med. 2016 Mar;107(3):127-39. doi: 10.1701/2182.23602.
In the last decade an extensive debate on the topic of end of life decisions has developed in western countries, obtaining a worldwide media relevance. Philosophers, theologians, legal experts and doctors, focus their attention on the three thorny issues of the topic: forgoing treatments, euthanasia and assisted suicide. A thorough and respectful discussion on these issues should include all stakeholders - above all palliative care physicians - and should be encouraged in order to understand the views in favor or against the three practices, checking the different moral positions, and analyzing the cultural, social and legal aspects in the background on one hand, and, on the other, their impact on the health care systems. At present, in the fields of communications and politics, the debate related to the topic of these end of life practices is characterized by a confusion of terms and meanings. As an outcome, the term "euthanasia" is misused as a "container" including forgoing treatments, euthanasia and assisted suicide, while palliative sedation is wrongly considered as a procedure to cause death. This confusing approach does not permit to understand the real issues at the stake, keeping the debate at the tabloid level. Conversely, sharing the precise meaning of the words is the only way to provide tools to make rational, autonomous and responsible decisions, allowing individual informed choices in compliance with the principle of autonomy. This article is not aimed to take a moral stand in favor or against forgoing treatments, euthanasia and assisted suicide. Through an analysis based on scientific criteria, the authors firstly review the definitions of these three practices, examining the concepts enclosed in each term; secondly, they offer a glance on the legal approach to end of life issues in western countries; lastly, they investigate the relationship between these practices and palliative care culture in light of the medical societies official statements. The authors chosen to examine the topic of forgoing treatments, euthanasia and assisted suicide from a scientific point of view, because the clinical approach, taking into account the biological context of disease related to the human and social domains, seems to be able to better gather all the aspects of end of life practices, providing useful information to deal with them also in a philosophical or juridical perspective.
在过去十年中,西方国家围绕临终决策这一话题展开了广泛的辩论,并引起了全球媒体的关注。哲学家、神学家、法律专家和医生将注意力集中在该话题的三个棘手问题上:放弃治疗、安乐死和协助自杀。关于这些问题进行全面且尊重的讨论应涵盖所有利益相关者——尤其是姑息治疗医生——并且应该鼓励这样的讨论,以便了解支持或反对这三种做法的观点,审视不同的道德立场,并一方面分析其背后的文化、社会和法律层面,另一方面分析它们对医疗保健系统的影响。目前,在通信和政治领域,与这些临终做法相关的辩论存在术语和含义混淆的问题。结果,“安乐死”一词被滥用为一个“容器”,涵盖了放弃治疗、安乐死和协助自杀,而姑息性镇静则被错误地视为一种导致死亡的程序。这种混乱的方式无法让人理解真正的关键问题,使辩论停留在小报层面。相反,明确词语的精确含义是提供工具以做出理性、自主和负责任决策的唯一途径,从而允许个人在符合自主性原则的情况下做出明智的选择。本文并非旨在对放弃治疗、安乐死和协助自杀采取支持或反对的道德立场。通过基于科学标准的分析,作者首先回顾这三种做法的定义,审视每个术语所包含的概念;其次,他们简要介绍西方国家对临终问题的法律处理方式;最后,他们根据医学协会的官方声明,研究这些做法与姑息治疗文化之间的关系。作者选择从科学角度审视放弃治疗、安乐死和协助自杀这一话题,是因为临床方法考虑到了与人类和社会领域相关的疾病生物学背景,似乎能够更好地收集临终做法的所有方面,也能从哲学或法律角度为处理这些问题提供有用信息。