Futile Therapy versus Worthy Dying: Anthropological and Ethical Arguments

Nowadays, issues related to the final stages of life stand more and more at the centre of problems relating to life and health, which result, for example, from the demographic situation in highly developed societies. In the last decades of the twentieth century, an explosion of therapeutic possibilities in the field of technical medicine has caused such questions to be voiced more and more frequently: Should humans try to live as long as possible, or should they live as long as they can with dignity and then die with dignity? Despite the seemingly obvious answer, there is still considerable medical and social resistance to the policy of discontinuing futile therapy. There are probably many reasons for this situation, but one of the most important factors is that this is regarded as a form of euthanasia. This means that ineffective therapy administered to a terminally ill patient is prolonged, even when it increases their suffering and prolongs their agony. Therefore, it is reasonable to examine the relevant arguments for the right approach to treating a terminally ill person. The starting point should begin with the empirical facts about patients who are in the last stage of their life, and where there is reasonable doubt about the benefits of the treatment they are receiving. Since normative conclusions should not be directly derived from empirical data, it is necessary to collect anthropological arguments first. It is only the concept of what a human being is that is fundamental to the applied bioethics, according to which we can formulate ethical conclusions. Finally, theology will come to the fore and it can bring new perspectives on death and what is beyond death boundaries.