Suchergebnisse

George Washington was the initiator of a style of government based on individualfreedom and public happiness that, since then, has influenced not only the politicaland economic history of his country, but also much of the world. Now, despite theextraordinary importance of both concepts, he never specified what he meant by thelatter. There is, in fact, no document by the US president in which he gives adefinition, or at least a conclusive clue, of what he understood as happiness. On thecontrary, in several documents he recognizes a lack of complete clarity about itsmeaning and scope. The objective of this work is to generate a congruent narrativethat, based on the analysis of his texts, the political context in which he developedand his main intellectual influences, clarify, as far as possible, what he understood byhappiness and what was its relationship with his political and moral philosophy. ; George Washington fue iniciador de un estilo de gobierno basado en libertadindividual y la felicidad pública que, desde entonces, ha influido no solo en lahistoria política y económica de su país, sino también en gran parte del mundo.Ahora bien, a pesar de la extraordinaria importancia de ambos conceptos, nuncaprecisó a qué se refería con aquel último. No existe, de hecho, escrito alguno delmandatario estadounidense en el que ofrezca una definición o al menos una pistaconcluyente, de qué entendió por felicidad. Al contrario, en varios documentosreconoce una falta de claridad completa sobre su significado y alcance. El objetivode este trabajo es generar una narrativa congruente que partiendo del análisis de sustextos, el contexto político en el que se desenvolvió y sus principales influenciasintelectuales, aclare, en la medida de lo posible, qué entendía por felicidad y cuál erala relación de esta con su filosofía política y moral.

The discussion of a bill that allows medically assisted death (MAD) in Chile, revived the debate about the ethics of this practice. The Department of Ethics of the Chilean Medical Association herein analyzes arguments in favor or against the participation of the medical profession in MAD. Among the main arguments against the participation of physicians in this practice are that MAD conflicts with the basic ethical principles of medical practice, that it is contrary to the purposes of medicine and that it could erode the patients' and society's confidence in physicians. The arguments in favor are related to physician's compassion and non-abandonment of patients during their illness, choosing palliative care and ushering them to the final instance. Additionally, there is social expectation that this practice will be carried out by trained physicians who can verify that the strict criteria established by the legislation are met, guarantee that it obeys to a repeated request of a fully capable patient, and who is able to deal with the complications of the procedure. In this document we aimed to represent the different perspectives about physicians' participation in MAD, offering arguments to colleagues and stimulating their participation in this important debate.