Martin Gluchman

The present paper focuses on the development of Czech philosophical thought during the period of the First Republic. It is a time of remarkable diversity in this important part of spiritual culture. Many modern philosophical trends also developed during this time. Here we also encounter a change in the institutional security of theoretical and educational work (the creation of new universities, the publication of journals and monographs, and the organization of a world philosophical congress). This development had a discursive character. The question of the social involvement of philosophy in new political conditions was raised. This concerns one aspect of the discourse on the role of theoretical thought (philosophy, ethics, science) in the development of a program of real humanity within the framework of a democratic society. The so-called “struggle for the freedom of Czech philosophy” represented an intergenerational conflict, reflecting the broader issue of interpreting Czech history and its meaning. This article thus attempts to provide a brief perspective on intellectual diversity as the outcome of this discourse. It illustrates, through a specific historical period, the view that, in Czech philosophy and ethics, many thinkers and ideas can be found which are so original that they may serve as a remarkable source of inspiration even for the present day.

The paper aims to highlight the serious methodological issue of contemporary bioethics (especially topics on the subject of animal ethics). In the discourse on the issue of the pain and suffering of animals and in derived questions, a certain form of anthropomorphism is manifested. Ethical applications of empirical research results that are relevant to humans (or humans as an anatomically and physiologically analogous animal species) are preferred. Subsequently, these extrapolations serve as a criterion for judging the qualitative level of the capabilities of all animals. Serious ethical conclusions are drawn from this reduction.

The paper presents different approaches to the relationship of life and death among selected authors as a review of their articles within the last volume of the Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe) journal. The resource of the review is an article by Peter Singer The challenge of brain death for the sanctity of life ethics. Firstly, I try to analyze the issue when death occurs and when we can talk about death as a phenomenon that each and every living human being must come to terms within the course of their lives. Ethics of social consequences is used to analyze different approaches and states a conclusion defending the principles of humanity and human dignity within the scope of this ethical theory applied to various problem cases. I strive to support the question of the quality of life through the paternalistic approach of physicians influenced by their humane and dignified understanding of their relationship towards the patients. Ethics of social consequences offers many solutions to the discussed issues throughout the reviewed articles.

I will deal with the physician – patient relationship with the focus on the patient’s autonomy in my article. The core of the whole relationship are basic principles and values of common sense morality, such as respect, reverence, tolerance, justice, responsibility, dignity and the humanity of this relationship. If the physician disposes of these values, he will gain confidence in his/her patients and it’s just the positive attitude toward their mutual relationship if they trust each other and have a long-term relationship. In spite of a physician’s knowledge of, skill in, responsibility for all the treatment, the physician’s abilities to provide diagnosis and prognosis in order to provide treatment possibilities and explain its impacts and influence, are secondary to the patient’s right to decide independently based on his/her free will, whether he/she will undergo the treatment recommended by the physician. The physician should not be influenced by any other external effects and factors and should perform his/her job following the values and the principles defined in the Hippocratic Oath.

Bioethics has been a very disputable field of applied ethics in the past years, which is caused by the frequency with which the term bioethics is used and, primarily, by the importance of the questions solved and increasing public interest. Many contemporary ethical and moral problems are based and rest upon conflicts stemming in bioethics. In the presented article, I will focus on the principle of humanity as a part of one of the most complex fields of bioethics. I will use ethics of social consequences as a theoretical point of research into biomedical problems regarding euthanasia and the relationship between the physician and the patient, which will be used as a tool for solving practical moral problems and dilemmas within medical ethics (as ethics of social consequences comes from the situational approach) as well. The determining morality criterion and basic point of my assessment are social consequences of acting (other consequences – purpose, motive, decision making – are transformed into them).