English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

By constitutional interpretation based on the fundamental principle of human dignity as well as on the right to life, it is understood that the Federal Constitution ensures the right to die with dignity. However, there is no federal law regulating that right. Considering the social, juridical and philosophical issues involving dignified death, the normative gap generates legal uncertainty, which is expressed on the fear physicians have of suffering judicial sanctions for practicing orthothanasia. Therefore, this work proposes to analyze the damage liability of the medical doctor who practices orthothanasia. To that point, dignified death was conceptualized in its ethical and juridical comprehension, and then the concepts of dysthanasia, assisted suicide, euthanasia and orthothanasia were defined. It was verified that the physicians who does not practice orthothanasia, whenever elected by the patient as their treatment, perpetrates an illicit action for which they may be held liable.

A licitude civil da prática da ortotanásia por médico em respeito à vontade livre do paciente