La problématique de l’euthanasie chez Jocelyne Saint-Arnaud. Une lecture des enjeux éthiques et technologies biomédicales (1999)

Abstract

The subject which is our concern is entitled: “The problem of euthanasia in Jocelyne Saint-Arnaud. A reading of Ethical Issues and Biomedical Technologies (1999)", our theme, the choice of which is justified by the interest we have in issues linked to contemporary medicine, arises in relation to our cultural values, particularly in Africa, for both traditional and religious reasons. This concern's the problem of man's relationship to life under the prism of biomedical techno-sciences. Euthanasia is understood in its contemporary sense as the medical act consisting of killing a seriously ill patient. According to Jocelyne Saint-Arnaud, this practice refers to the act of putting to death a person suffering from an incurable illness, with the aim of shortening their suffering. In this sense, the author defends the classic conception of ethics applied to medicine. It provides quality analysis tools to caregivers to base and guide their end-of-life decision-making. We need better pain control, through the development of a global approach to care and a philosophy of end-of-life support. Saint-Arnaud therefore proposes informed consent as a common method for the practice of euthanasia. The issue is supporting the sick person to die with dignity. Thus the request for euthanasia must come from the patient and must be reiterated several times, in particular through the informed consent or the wishes of his/her biological family. It is in this sense that the author distinguishes two types of euthanasia: direct and indirect euthanasia. The practice of euthanasia, which is also one of the consequences of the biomedical and biotechnological revolution, leads us to ask the following questions: This is the thesis of Jocelyne Saint-Arnaud, who insists on the meaning of the decisions taken at the end of life during the practice of direct and indirect euthanasia; Does suffering exclude death? If the subject is both body and spirit then, can we live beyond the human suffering experienced? Furthermore, is it possible to consider applications of euthanasia today outside of economic constraints and the circumstances of patients? How do African conservatives consider euthanasia a legalized crime? To overcome this questioning, a historical-critical method allowed us to go back in Antiquity to the contemporary period, with the aim of identifying the issues surrounding euthanasia practices well before Joselyne Saint-Arnaud. It then allowed us to examine the issues surrounding our author's thinking, ultimately questioning its relevance. We conclude that Africans who are scientifically backward must certainly promote biomedical sciences but remember that in the current era, the problem of euthanasia arises in relation to our cultural values. Euthanasia is mainly rejected in Africa for both traditional and religious reasons. African culture does not authorize this practice and in the face of incurable diseases, traditional medicine must be favored.