Linkoping, December 13th 2009

Uirá Duarte Wisnesky

ID: 830908-P167
Department: Health and Society
Linkoping University

Briefly Considerations about Death and Die

Death inexorably occurs and is common to all living organisms. In addition, death is one
of the most genuine problems of the human condition, having commanded some efforts to study
that throughout the history of Western thoughts.1
Nowadays, most people do not die as they previously did. The hospitalization, intensive
care units and the transplants invention all exemplify three major trends in the last century, which
entirely changed the prospect of death and die2. The panorama of going to end ones days in a
hospital bed, attached to a series of tubes and devices and as a possible organ donor may did not
exists before World War II.
Closely related to death is the question of the dying process, which evokes questions
about suffering and quality of life3.
For instance, Singer in his book Rethinking Life and Death4, which is subtitled "The
collapse of our traditional ethics,” argues that the ways we traditionally think about life and
death does not respond to the pressure of the painful and complex medical dilemmas, which have
arisen in recent years with the frightening increase in medical technology, that gives doctors the
power to save and prolong life.
Previously, the old mythology has touched upon this issue. For instance, the Asclepius’
story, in which in his learning with Chiron, the centaur, acquired the ability to resurrect the dead.
This means there is a perspective that the god of medicine, who should care for and sometimes
heal, has a desire to overcome death. It is worth pointing out that a desire to overcome mortality,
as it is often inherent to health care position, even today, is already implicit in the myth5.
The function of new technologies in medicine brought in a whole range of biological
maintenance functions with a large potential to save numerous lives. In this context, one of the
focuses is the biotechnology, which is capable of meeting the old human desire to overcome
death.
Furthermore, Singer claims that it is no longer possible to preserve the inviolability of life
as the keystone of our ethical perception. He suggests to discard the old ethics and replace it with
something new which requires a base, a set of principles from which to start. Thus, one of the
most important principles adopted by Singer is a humanist distinction between "human being"
and "human person"6.
Singer says that the human being is a member of the species Homo sapiens, but the
human person is much more than that. A human person has self-awareness at different times and
places, is able to anticipate the future, has desires and wishes for the future and has sense of the
past, etc7.
This distinction is very important to Singer. It is through this that the philosopher try to
argue that humans beings do not have the same right to life that the human person. Subsequently,
he advocates the theory that someone in a persistent vegetative state or with a range of brain
disabilities may even be a human being, but is not a human person. Therefore, he suggests that
killing human is not always wrong and in many cases would be the best thing to do.

DISCUSSION:
"Die, do I care? (...) Annoying is no longer live."
Mário Quintana

The questions about the process of dying have very ancient origins. This question has
relevant points faced by the bioethics regarding the end of life in the beginning of the 21st
century. In this way, this discourse brings a call for reflection.
We must look into the problem represented by the therapeutic obstinacy and the incessant
struggle against death (which is very familiar in contemporary medicine) and call for
reconsideration since the adopted position of some health professionals is an attempt to
artificially preserve the organic system of the dying-sick through the use of all science and
technology available, which then leads to a new "victory" over death every moment, despite all
the suffering caused.
 This suffering is translated in some hypotheses: a) the unavoidability damage caused by
certain diseases in which the uncontrolled adoption of different methods of treatment becomes
irrelevant; b) the huge suffering assumed by the therapy obstinacy, both for whom experience
that and to whom are close; c) the difficult issue faced by the polis in maintaining these patients
launched in the dying process, since they will not produce and will need support sustained by the
society.
Taking the above dilemma into consideration, a few central questions could be asked:
What is a life worth living? Should we aspire to recast the Hippocrates thought where we return
to a less medical-technical condition and a more human, soul and heart doctors?

REFERENCE:
1
Dastur F. A morte. Ensaio sobre a finitude. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Difel; 2002.

2
Welin S. “Peter Singer ", Lecture/Class, Linkoping University, unpublished. 2009

3
Pessini L. Distanásia. Até quando prolongar a vida? São Paulo: São Camilo/Loyola; 2001.

4
Singer P, "Rethinking Life and Death...", 1994, pp 1-80

5
Siqueira-Batista R. O médico e a morte: revendo o Asclépio que subsiste em nós. Jornal do Conselho Regional de Medicina 2001; 14:4.

6
Singer, P. 2002. Ética Prática. São Paulo, Martins Fontes. p.96.

7
Singer, P. 2002. Ética Prática. São Paulo, Martins Fontes. p.96.

Singer, P. 1997. Repensar la vida y la muerte: el derrumbre de nuestra ética tradicional. Barcelona/Buenos Aires/México, Paidós.