One of the key problems facing bioethics concerns those cases where, due to the limited human and technical resources of medicine, patients are in fact doomed to die. The reason for withdrawing treatment may be the futility of using the available means, as well as the burden of certain procedures. In the contemporary world, euthanasia is offered as an alternative to withdrawing treatment, that is, direct causing the death of a patient, killing. They distinguish these two types of practice by (...) analyzing the duties of the physician, the intentions of all subjects, the differences between action and inaction. The obligation to save the patient at all costs should be rejected because of the non-humanity of this principle. That is why, however, the doctor faces a dilemma: to leave the patient to natural processes, or to kill him or her directly. The intention in both cases is to solve a problem in which the treatment of the patient becomes futile, and the withdrawing sooner or later leads to death. Euthanasia in its passive form may procedurally coincide with the withdrawing treatment. Withdrawing treatment is the decision, and therefore, it is more an action than inaction. It seems that the choice between euthanasia and withdrawing treatment is purely technical. The author of the article suggests comparing the mechanisms of decision making in the application of euthanasia and withdrawing treatment, looking at the purpose of these decisions and the means of its reaching. In the case of euthanasia, the purpose of action or inaction is to relieve suffering, and the means is to cause death. In the case of withdrawing treatment, instead, the goal is also the good of the patient, but death is not a means but a side effect. Therefore, the author recognizes that withdrawing treatment is a more moral practice than euthanasia, which is a direct killing and is justified by the low value of one’s life. (shrink)

The topic of happiness is one of the oldest in philosophical researches. Now it is the subject of interest, in particular, for bioethicists, scientists who are looking for the principles of proper treatment of human life, health, and death. The concept of happiness acquires special significance in the quality of life bioethical conception. The author of the article outlines the origins of the understanding of happiness adopted by the supporters of this conception, as well as gives examples of its application (...) by them. The quality of life bioethical conception adopted utilitarian vision of happiness, developed mainly by J. Bentham and J. S. Mill. According to it, happiness is identified with benefit or pleasure, which can be measured and maximized. In the XX century utilitarians began to consider autonomy – the ability of a person to manage his or her own life and death – as an important element of happiness. The influence of the preference utilitarianism is also noticeable. In obedience to it they see happiness in the ability of person to realize his or her rational and autonomous desires. The medical conditions that does not allow it are interpreted as lack of happiness. Thus, they justify not only the admissibility of withdrawing treatment that doesn’t give the expected result, but also of euthanasia. Killing a person, in terms of the quality of life conception, may not be a lack of happiness if the other alternative is to continue living in conditions that do not allow a person to realize his or her preferences, or does not coincide with his or her ideas of a decent life. The lives of persons who do not manifest rationality and autonomy are interpreted as inhuman, as wrongful, and the person as deprived of the right to happiness. Critics of the quality of life conception point to the subjectivity of the criteria by which happiness is measured. The second reproach is the reference to the absence of a hierarchy of values. That is why they give pleasure and absence of suffering too much importance. (shrink)

Bioethics is an interdisciplinary science that deals with the moral aspects of medicine, biotechnology and the value of life in general. Quality of life concept is the basis for one of the models of bioethics. Its supporters understand the value of human life by relying on the categories of its qualitative characteristics. They argue that the value of life is relative and depends on certain criteria, and prove the permissibility to terminate it in some cases. Quality of life conception is (...) criticized, above all, by those scholars who rely on religious ideas of the equal value and inviolability of all people’s lives. This article reveals several examples of such criticism in the works of Polish and American authors: T. Biesaga, H. Ciach, G. Hołub, P. Kieniewicz, R. P. George and P. Lee. Citing the arguments of that Christian thinkers, the author forms her own attitude to the problem. The ethical and ontological sources of quality of life concept, namely utilitarianism and naturalism, become the main object of criticism. It is significant that in the utilitarian appeal to maximize happiness as pleasure and calculate the gain or loss they see an attempt to establish the primacy of the overall well-being over an individual’s life as well as a reason for killing those individuals whose lives do not meet quality criteria and impair overall well-being. They also criticize such a consequence of the naturalistic view as reduction of the personality to its manifestations. The absence of such manifestations becomes for the supporters of the quality of life concept the basis for conclusion about a low quality of life of some individuals. One more critical remark towards the quality of life concept concern erasing of differences between humans and animals and their interests. The technocratic attitude that permits any manipulations of a human life if only they can be performed is criticized too. The author demonstrates that the fundamental fault of the quality of life concept which is criticized by all its opponents is a limited understanding of human nature and human life. (shrink)