Transplants: bioethics and justice

Bioethics, as a branch of philosophy that focuses on questions relative to health and human life, is closely tied to the idea of justice and equality. As such, in understanding the concept of equality in its original sense, that is, in associating it to the idea to treat "unequals" (those who are unequal or different, in terms of conditions or circumstances) unequally (differentially), in proportion to their inequalities (differences), we see that the so-called "one-and-only waiting list" for transplants established in law no. 9.434/97, ends up not addressing the concept of equality and justice, bearing upon bioethics, even when considering the objective criteria of precedence established in regulation no. 9.4347/98, Thus, the organizing of transplants on a one-and-only waiting list, with a few exceptions that are weakly applicable, without a case by case technical and grounded analysis, according to each particular necessity, ends up institutionalizing inequalities, condemning patients to happenstance and, consequently, departs from the ratio legis, which aims at seeking the greatest application of justice in regards to organ transplants. We conclude, therefore, that from an analysis of the legislation and of the principles of bioethics and justice, there is a need for the creation of a collegiate of medical experts, that, based on medical criteria and done in a well established manner, can analyze each case to be included on the waiting list, deferentially and according to the necessity; thus, precluding that people in special circumstances be treated equal to people in normal circumstances.

Gunshot wound to the pregnant uterus: case report

Crime and violence have become a public health problem. Pregnant women have not been the exception and gunshot injuries occupy an important place as a cause of trauma. An important fact is that pregnant women, who suffer trauma, are special patients because pregnancy causes physiological and anatomical changes. Management of these patients should be multidisciplinary, by the general surgeon, the obstetrician and the neonatologist. However, even trauma referral centers could neither have the staff nor the ideal training for these specific cases. In this context we present the following case.

As razões do laissez-faire: uma análise do ataque ao mercantilismo e da defesa da liberdade econômica na Riqueza das Nações

The reasons of the laissez-faire: an analysis of the attack to mercantilism and of the defense of economic liberty in The Wealth of Nations. The main reasons presented in The Wealth of Nations to advocate the system of economic liberty and reject mercantilism are analyzed. These two systems are evaluated considering basically their impact on the annual product, and the degree of liberty and justice they engender. Based on his views of man and of capital hierarchy, Smith defends the superiority of economic liberty in what concerns the growth of the annual product. This system is also considered superior to mercantilism in terms of justice since it does not privilege any sector of society and allows a great level of liberty to the individuals.

Um estudo sobre a vitimização para a cidade de São Paulo

A study about the victimization in the city of São Paulo. This paper applies the crime economics theory to Brazilian data. Following Becker (1968), Hinderlang et al. (1978) and Cohen et al. (1981), we tested the microeconomic factors that influence crime and victimization. For this end, the two waves of research of victimization of the Instituto Futuro Brasil, 2003 and 2008, were used in an effort to identify the determinants of victimization and police notification, using probit model. The main results suggest the factors which impact significantly the probability of victimization are the demographic characteristics, economic conditions and personal habits. The models of "life style" and "opportunity" seem to have good performance.

JUSTIFYING LIBERAL RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE: PUNISHMENT, CRIMINALIZATION, AND HOLISTIC RETRIBUTIVISM

ABSTRACT In this article I explore whether liberal retributive justice should be conceived of either individualistically or holistically. I critically examine the individualistic account of retributive justice and suggest that the question of retribution – i.e., whether and when punishment of an individual is compatible with just treatment of that individual – must be answered holistically. By resorting to the ideal of sensitive reasons, a model of legitimacy at the basis of our best normative models of democracy, the article argues that in modern liberal democracies, punishment of an offender A for f is compatible with just treatment of A only if punishment of an individual for f can be legitimate in A's and A's fellow citizens' eyes. Only once retributive justice is understood in this holistic fashion the imposition of punishment can be made compatible with just treatment of individuals.