Objetivo: verificar se o Estado pode ser responsabilizado pelas mortes havidas por coronavírus. Metodologia: foi realizada uma pesquisa exploratória por meio de sites oficiais do Governo Federal e do Superior Tribunal de Justiça; utilizou-se o método técnico-jurídico e dedutivo, com a análise conceitual dos fundamentos e requisitos legais encontrados em estudos científicos e na doutrina, além da observação jurisprudencial análoga, visando elucidar e confrontar ações e omissões governamentais a respeito da emergência em saúde iniciada em 2020. Resultados: a imprevisibilidade é causa excludente de indenização, entretanto, sob o ângulo da precaução, a forma adotada pelo Governo em certas medidas e políticas no enfrentamento à pandemia é capaz de gerar responsabilização de obrigação indenizatória. Conclusão: eventos pandêmicos, em regra, seriam causas excludentes de responsabilização por sua imprevisibilidade, contudo, podem adequar-se dentro de uma previsibilidade que permita ações preventivas para dirimir riscos por meio de governança pública da saúde. Submissão em: 24/06/22 | Aprovação em: 06/03/23
RESUMO:O saber científico é uma das grandes conquistas da modernidade. A medicina, com sua autonomia metodológica, introduziu inúmeras modalidades terapêuticas, ganhou imensuráveis espaços e ampliou o corpus hippocraticum. A partir deste impulso a medicina abriu novos caminhos até então desconhecidos ou inexplorados pelo homem. Daí que a necessidade de enfrentamento dessas novas questões surge como um verdadeiro desafio, colocando em pauta discussões éticas, bioéticas, políticas, morais, religiosas, sociais, filosóficas e jurídicas. Dentro dos novos campos da medicina, destaca-se o transplante de órgãos e tecidos como procedimento que carrega em seu núcleo a solidariedade e a preocupação com a saúde pública. O objetivo do presente trabalho é fazer a leitura bioética -compreendendo seus princípios e com relevo à autonomia da vontade do paciente agregado ao primum non nocere -e também a leitura jurídica, visando garantir o devido respaldo legal tanto para a comunidade científica em suas pesquisas, quanto para o homem em sua individualidade, de modo que sejam resguardados seus direitos e garantias individuais fundamentais. A metodologia repousa na utilização do diálogo interdisciplinar para se compreender os vários aspectos do estudo proposto na busca de conclusões que sejam satisfatórias não só para as comunidades com interesse no tema, mas também para a própria população que o desconhece.
Research on human beings has expanded greatly due to progress and the evolution of society as well as customs. Not only the unceasing development of research on human beings, but also interference in the beginning and end of life with homologous and heterogonous human reproduction, surrogate motherhood, cloning, gene therapies, eugenics, euthanasia, dysthanasia, orthothanasia, assisted suicide, genetic engineering, reassignment surgery in cases of transsexuality, the use of recombinant DNA technology and embryonic stem cells, transplantation of human organs and tissues, biotechnology and many other scientific advances. Scientific progress goes faster than the real needs of human beings, who are the final recipient of the entire evolutionary progress. Hence, there is the need to scrutinize whether new technologies are necessary, suitable and timely so that humanity can achieve its postulate of bene vivere. Human cloning, as an abrupt scientific fact, has presented itself to the world community as a procedure that can be performed with relative success and with little difficulty, since it achieved its objectives with the cloning of Dolly the sheep. This issue became the topic of discussion not only in the scientific community but in the lay population, and it received from both, global disapproval. The conclusion is that the human being is unique, with a life cycle defined by the rules of nature. Reversal will cause a violation of the genetic heritage and, above all, will confront the constitutional principle of human dignity.
Research with stem cells Advances in biotechnology and biomedical engineering gain substance and are projected in many healthcare areas, especially in genetic engineering, which started after the deciphering of DNA. There is an uncontrollable fascination of researchers to overcome all barriers in their way and to find conceptive technologies that are safe and feasible, which provide complete control over the genetic patrimony. If, on one hand, this opens up new alternatives for infertility so that citizens can exercise the right of procreation, on the other, due to the blurred manners of research, there is a need to draw boundaries to protect mankind. Man, by his own behavior and because of his intelligence, has an investigative nature, he is a researcher bent on knowing the mysteries that challenge and abound in his external world. He wants to penetrate the secrets of nature, dominate the seas, air, mountains, trees, animals and everything else, a real tug of war in which, what should prevail is man's conquest and superiority. But, not always man achieves his goals. Nothing can be done to stop an earthquake, a tsunami, a storm, a volcanic eruption, except, preventively, to guard against imminent danger. If man has gained benefits to improve and optimize his life, he has also accumulated losses, because he fails to restore and preserve nature that has its own immutable rules. For more than a decade man has been intensifying studies involving adult stem cells, which have been tentatively directed to replace and repair tissue. Research moved forward and man started studying embryonic cells, which have the capacity to differentiate into any cell due to their totipotent, multipotent and pluripotent characteristics. And with this the Brazilian Supreme Court was called upon to decide a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality brought by the General Attorney's Office regarding the use of human embryos for stem cell research and therapy purposes; the ruling was close but favorable (six votes to five) and thus brought a new ethical legal view in respect to the beginning of life. The action, in brief, embraced the idea that the embryo, since its inception, is representative of life and, as such, enjoys the privilege and right to have its dignity preserved. Thus, the legislative liberality afforded in the article in the law on biosafety (1) , which allows the use of non-viable embryos for research purposes, would be a way to counter the legal order and violate the principle of human dignity, which is one of the basic foundations of a democratic state of law. With this decision, the Supreme Court indirectly defined the beginning of human life, as in the womb and not in vitro. The defining locus changed to intra-uterus, the protective shell that supplies a refuge for the embryo, providing it all the conditions necessary for its development. Extra-uterus conditions, such as with in vitro fertilization, there is no life but rather a set of procreative cells. Research on human beings has expanded greatly due to progress and the evol...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.