Advertisement

Types of Action and Criteria for Individualizing Them: The Case of Omission of Life-Saving Care

  • Pilar ZambranoEmail author
Chapter
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 70)

Abstract

In this chapter we intend to outline and develop the thesis that the intrinsic intelligibility of the types of actions regulated by normative systems is a necessary condition for both the efficiency of their guiding function and the objectivity of their judging function. To support this thesis, we will first analyze the cognitive and semantic assumptions entailed in both the claim that the abstract types of actions are distinguishable, and the claim that individual actions can in fact be individualized or judged. Secondly, these criteria will be applied to the moral distinction between “killing by omission of medical care”, and “tolerating an unavoidable death”. Afterwards, we will briefly address the criteria for the correct specification or individualization of individual actions and/or omissions, as instances of a specific type of action or omission. Lastly, we will allege that more than just a few of the doctrinal and legal proposals advocating the eradication of the distinction between “orthothanasia” and “passive euthanasia” within the bio-legal context wrongly confuse the perspective of bioethical or moral classification and individualization with that of bio-legal classification and individualization.

Keywords

Normative System Physical Description Moral Choice Moral Legitimacy Physical Type 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anscombe, G.E.M. 1963. Intention, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aquinas, Thomas. Suma Theologie I-II: qq. 17–20; 18, a. 7 ad. 1; 20 a. 3 ad. 6; II-II: qq. 49 a. 2, ad. 1; 64, a. 7. Google Scholar
  3. Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. 2013. Principles of biomedical ethics, 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Childress, James F. 1982. Who should decide? Paternalism in health care. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dworkin, Ronald. 1994. Life’s dominion. An argument about abortion, euthanasia and individual freedom. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  6. Engelhardt, J.R. 1996. The foundations of bioethics, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Finnis, John. 1983. Fundamentals of ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Finnis, John. 1991. Moral absolutes. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
  9. Finnis, John. 1998. Aquinas, moral, political, and legal theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Grisez, German. 1993. The way of the Lord Jesus. Living a Christian life. Chicago: Saint Paul’s Alba House.Google Scholar
  11. Hart Herbert, L. 1994. The concept of law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kass, Leon R. 2002. Life, liberty and the defense of dignity. San Francisco: Encounter Books.Google Scholar
  13. Keiser, K. 2010. The moral act in Saint Thomas. A fresh look. The Thomist 74: 243.Google Scholar
  14. Kripke, Saul. 1972. Naming and necessity. In Semantics of natural language, ed. David Davidson and Gilbert Harman, 253. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  15. Kultgen, Johh. 1995. Autonomy & intervention. Parentalism in the caring of life. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Ladd, J. 1979. Positive and negative euthanasia. In Ethical issues relating life & death, ed. J. Ladd. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. May, William, Robert Barry, et al. 1987. Feeding and hydrating the permanently unconscious and other vulnerable persons. Issues in Law and Medicine 3: 203.Google Scholar
  18. Millan Puelles, Antonio. 1994. Ética y Realismo. Madrid: Rialp.Google Scholar
  19. Nino, Carlos S. 1987. Introducción a la filosofía de la acción. Buenos Aires: Eudeba.Google Scholar
  20. Putnam, Hilary. 1975. The meaning of meaning. In Mind, language and reality, ed. K. Gunderson, 131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Quine, W.V.O. 1999. Two Dogmas on empiricism. In Concepts, ed. E. Margolis and S. Laurence, 154. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Rachels, J. 1979. Euthanasia, killing and letting die. In Ethical issues relating life & death, ed. J. Ladd. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Rhonheimer, Martin, and William F. Murphy (eds.). 2008. Perspective of the acting person: Essays in the renewal of thomistic moral philosophy. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ronheimer, Martin. 2001. Perspektive der Moral. Philosophische Grundlagen der Tugendethik. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. Sánchez-Ostiz, Pablo. 2008. Imputación y teoría del delito. La doctrina kantiana de la imputación y su recepción en el pensamiento jurídico-penal contemporáneo. Buenos Aires: IB de f.Google Scholar
  26. Sgreccia, Elio. 2007. Manuale di Bioetica. Volume I Fondamenti ed ética biomedica, Quartath ed. Milano: Vita e pensiero.Google Scholar
  27. Spaemann, R. 2001. Grenzen. Zur etischen Dimension des Handlens. Suttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
  28. Statement “Iura et bona” on euthanasia by Sagrada Congragación para la Doctrina de la Fe, (5.5.1980).Google Scholar
  29. Vigo, Alejandro. 2012. Deliberación y decisión según Aristóteles. Tópicos 43: 79.Google Scholar
  30. Zambrano, Pilar. 2013. Principios fundamentales como determinación de los principios morales de justicia. Una aproximación desde la distinción entre la perspectiva moral y la perspectiva jurídica de especificación de la acción humana. In Ley, moral y razón. Estudios sobre el pensamiento de John Finnis a propósito de la segunda edición de Ley natural y derechos naturales, ed. Juan B. Etcheverry. Mexico: UNAM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Private Law and International RelationsUniversity of NavarraPamplonaSpain

Personalised recommendations