Les nouveau-nés ne sont pas des patients comme les autres. Contrairement aux patients plus âgés, il existe pour les nouveau-nés des recommandations qui guident leur prise en charge ou leur non-prise en charge dès la naissance en fonction de critères spécifiques, notamment l’âge gestationnel. Or l’âge gestationnel est imprécis, et demeure un mauvais prédicteur de la survie ou du pronostic des nouveau-nés. De tels critères ne sont pas utilisés pour les patients plus âgés. En plus d’être réanimés différemment, les nouveau-nés décèdent aussi autrement. Contrairement aux patients plus âgés qui décèdent majoritairement en recevant des soins actifs à visée curative, de nombreux nouveau-nés décèdent suite à une décision de réorientation de soins, et souvent ceux-ci meurent malgré une relative stabilité physiologique, en raison d’inquiétudes se rapportant à leur qualité de vie future. Lorsqu’interrogés, malgré le fait qu’une majorité d’intervenants en santé croient que la réanimation d’un nouveau-né fragile ou à risque à la naissance est dans son meilleur intérêt, une majorité presqu’équivalente d’intervenants seraient prêts à redéfinir ce meilleur intérêt en fonction de la famille et à malgré tout à lui offrir des soins de confort. Ceci n’est pas le cas avec les patients plus âgés. Cette dévalorisation est expliquée par le fait que les nouveau-nés sont perçus comme moralement différents des patients plus âgés. Les raisons de ce statut moral particulier sont multiples, mais incluent notamment le contexte historique et socioculturel, l’absence de relations sociales préexistantes, un attachement perçu comme étant moindre, et l’influence de biais, de valeurs et d’expériences personnelles et professionnelles défavorables aux nouveau-nés. Nous croyons que cette différence de statut moral doit être identifiée et reconnue, et doit alimenter certaines réflexions professionnelles et sociales, notamment par rapport à sa désirabilité et aux conséquences qui en découlent. / Neonates are different. Contrary to older patients, professional guidelines specifically addressing the resuscitation or the non-resuscitation of neonates have been established and are being used by healthcare institutions worldwide. These guidelines are mostly built around gestational age criteria. Unfortunately, gestational age is imprecise and is not a good predictor of survival or long-term prognosis. This may not be the typical perspective when dealing with older patients. Not only are neonates resuscitated differently, their modes of death are also not the same. Unlike older patients who mostly die while receiving acute care, many neonates die following a decision to withdraw or withhold care, and the majority of these die in a condition of relative physiologic stability because of concerns for their future quality of life. When investigated or surveyed, even though a majority of health care providers believe resuscitating a fragile neonate is in the baby’s best interest, a similar majority is also willing to redefine this best interest according to family wishes and to accept comfort care. This is not the case with older patients. This devaluation is explained by the fact that neonates are perceived as being morally different. The reasons explaining this difference in moral status are many but include the historical and socio-cultural context, the absence of long standing pre-existing social relationships, an attachment to neonates that is perceived as being inferior, and the influence of professional and personal biases, values, and experiences that are unfavorable to neonates. We believe this difference in conferred moral status needs to be recognized and acknowledged, and should further professional and social reflections about its desirability and consequences.

No description available.

Stem cell research offers hope to many people suffering from incurable diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, heart disease and spinal back injuries. However this poses a moral dilemma because embryos are destroyed during embryonic stem cell research. To determine whether embryonic stem cell research is morally justifiable, two views in respect of a human being were considered: i. a human has a dualistic nature in which his body and soul are two separate entities or ii. his body and soul forms a unity which can not be separated. If a human has a dualistic nature, it means that the embryo is not a human, it does not have a soul because the soul is added later to form a human. The implication of this is that it will be morally justifiable to kill an embryo during embryonic stem cell research. However if body and soul forms a unity which can not be separated, the embryo is a human which is already developing into a full grown human with several stages of development. It will thus not be morally justifiable to kill an embryo as this will violate the sixth commandment, i.e. “Thou shalt not kill.” To determine whether a human’s body and soul is an inseparable unity or whether they are two separate entities, the Pauline letters' view on the human being was investigated. The research method employed was to do a comparative literary study to highlight the different aspects of stem cell research and then exegesis was done in respect of body (σoμα / sōma); soul (ψυχὴ / psychē) and spirit (πνεῦμα / pneuma) in the Pauline letters according to the grammatical-historical method. An electronic Bible Concordance was used to determine the texts in which the above concepts appear. A semantic word analysis was also done to analyse these concepts. Then authoritative commentaries were used to check the findings. The analysis indicated that Paul refers to a human as unity in which body and soul can not be separated. The implication of this finding is that embryonic stem cell research should be dismissed because it will result in the destruction of embryos. Humans will thus be killed in violation of the sixth commandment. On the other hand adult stem cell research should be encouraged because it has the potential to cure diseases which has up to now been incurable. / Thesis (MTh (Ethics))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013.

Stem cell research offers hope to many people suffering from incurable diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, heart disease and spinal back injuries. However this poses a moral dilemma because embryos are destroyed during embryonic stem cell research. To determine whether embryonic stem cell research is morally justifiable, two views in respect of a human being were considered: i. a human has a dualistic nature in which his body and soul are two separate entities or ii. his body and soul forms a unity which can not be separated. If a human has a dualistic nature, it means that the embryo is not a human, it does not have a soul because the soul is added later to form a human. The implication of this is that it will be morally justifiable to kill an embryo during embryonic stem cell research. However if body and soul forms a unity which can not be separated, the embryo is a human which is already developing into a full grown human with several stages of development. It will thus not be morally justifiable to kill an embryo as this will violate the sixth commandment, i.e. “Thou shalt not kill.” To determine whether a human’s body and soul is an inseparable unity or whether they are two separate entities, the Pauline letters' view on the human being was investigated. The research method employed was to do a comparative literary study to highlight the different aspects of stem cell research and then exegesis was done in respect of body (σoμα / sōma); soul (ψυχὴ / psychē) and spirit (πνεῦμα / pneuma) in the Pauline letters according to the grammatical-historical method. An electronic Bible Concordance was used to determine the texts in which the above concepts appear. A semantic word analysis was also done to analyse these concepts. Then authoritative commentaries were used to check the findings. The analysis indicated that Paul refers to a human as unity in which body and soul can not be separated. The implication of this finding is that embryonic stem cell research should be dismissed because it will result in the destruction of embryos. Humans will thus be killed in violation of the sixth commandment. On the other hand adult stem cell research should be encouraged because it has the potential to cure diseases which has up to now been incurable. / Thesis (MTh (Ethics))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013.

The thesis deals with a relationship between humans and animals. In particular, it focuses on a trend of inclusion and exclusion of animals to/from society. Main research questions are designed to answer a question how the dynamics of this trend looks. A dynamic of moral status of animals, legal status of animals, symbolic status of animals and a status of another living being is examined on the European society from antiquity to the present. This time period is divided into 7 parts. The thesis explores not only the dynamics of the statuses, but also their interaction. The symbolic establishment of human - animal boundaries in the European history is considered as well. The thesis reflects essential turning points and tendencies which had the influence on the trend of inclusion and exclusion of animals to/from society. Reader should get the basic knowledge about the development of human - animal relationship through the history.

No description available.