English
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.152176Palabras clave:
human dignity, bioethics, human rights, constitutionResumen
Introduction: Human dignity, as coined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR / 1948), is an expression social solidarity, which should cement the relations between people. Human dignity is the foundation of all rights, such as freedom, equality, justice and peace in the world, and in Brazil, human dignity was deemed a fundamental pillar of the country’s post-1988 constitutional order.
Objective: This article seeks to a deeper investigation about the social nature of human dignity and its definition over time.
Methods: This is an exploratory research meant to unpack the concepts of "human dignity", "bioethics", "human rights" and "constitution". After describing the conceptual evolution of human dignity and the facts relevant to its conceptual formation in world history - as a normative standard and a legal rule -, we address the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR/1948), the Declaration of Helsinki (DH/1964), the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (UDBHR/2005), and the definition adopted in the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil (CFRB/1988). The study was carried out without temporal limitation, and included a review of referenced books, legal doctrines, as well as articles and books in the SciELO database.
Results and discussion: The findings ratify that human dignity is the foundation of all rights, including those of freedom, equality, justice and peace in the world, and must also guide the rights and duties of social regulation. Human dignity has changed from a criterion of power attributed to the social position of individuals to a value of the right to freedom, which now goes beyond the right of freedom and is the basis of modern constitutional democracy, which makes possible the realization of solidarity, as well as the duty and purpose of the state and the community. The will of the subject, of society, of the science and of the state, as well as the rules of domination and regulation, must have a limit on human dignity, and human dignity is not just fundamental right, in the sense of the Constitution, and must prevail over the exclusive will of science, the State and society. Therefore, in the making of power decisions and in realization of possible innovations of science involving human beings, human dignity demands the explicit consideration of respect and promotion of it.
Conclusion: Human dignity is enshrined in Brazilian constitutional law, as well as in bioethics and in human rights, and it constitutes all the fundamental rights of the human person. It is not merely a rule of autonomy and liberty, and it is an obligatory and non-derogable precept in the making of power decisions, a true main foundation of constitutional democracies.
Referencias
2. Dallari DA. Constituição e constituinte. 4ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2010.
3. Sarlet IW. Dignidade da pessoa humana e direitos fundamentais na Constituição Federal de 1988. 2ed. Porto Alegre: Livraria do Advogado, 2002.
4. Terra R. Kant e o direito. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar, 2004.
5. Brasil. Presidência da República. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. [cited 2018 May 02] Available from: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm.
6. Organização das Nações Unidas para a Educação, Ciência e Cultura (UNESCO). Declaração Universal sobre Bioética e Direitos humanos. [cited 2018 May 02] Available from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/ 001461/146180por.pdf.
7. Schwab K. A quarta revolução industrial. Edipro, 2016.
8. Adams J. Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law. Massachusetts: 1765.
9. Streck LL. A Crise da hermenêutica e a hermenêutica da crise: a necessidade de uma nova critica do direito (Ncp). In: Sampaio JAL. Jurisdição constitucional e direitos fundamentais. Belo Horizonte: Del Rey; 2003.
10. Santos BS. Para um novo senso comum: a ciência, o direito, e a politica na transição paradigmática: a crítica da razão indolente: contra o desperdício da experiência. V.1. 4 ed. São Paulo: Cortez, 2002.
11. Tosi G. Aristóteles e os Índios: a recepção da teoria aristotélica da escravidão natural entre a Idade Média Tardia e a Idade Moderna. In: Boni LA, Pich RH. A recepção do pensamento greco-romano, árabe e judaico pelo Ocidente medieval. Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS, 2004.
12. Dallari DA. A defesa do índio: Cristianismo militante. In: Betto F, Meneses AB, Jensen T. Utopia Urgente: escritos em homenagem a Frei Carlos Josaphat nos seus 80 anos. São Paulo: EDUC, 2002.
13. Dallari DA. A Constituição na vida dos povos: da idade media ao século XXI. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2013.
14. Hooft PF, Picardi GJ, Gutiérrez R, Gracia D, Morello AM. Bioetica, derecho e ciudadania: casos bioeticos en la jurisprudencia. Bogotá: Temis, 2005.
15. Marques Filho J. Ética em pesquisa: dez anos da resolução CNS 196/96. Rev Bras Reumatol. 2007;47(1):2-3. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0482-50042007000100002
16. Declaração de Helsinque I. Associação Médica Mundial: 1964. [cited 2018 May 02] Available from: https://www.ufrgs.br/bioetica/helsin1.htm.
17. Declaração de Helsinque da Associação Médica Mundial, revisada na 64ª Assembleia Geral da WMA realizada em Fortaleza/Brasil em 2013. [cited 2018 Apr 04] Available from: https://www.wma.net/wpcontent/ uploads/2016/11/491535001395167888_DoHBrazilianPortugueseVersionRev.pdf.
18. Diniz D, Correa M. Declaração de Helsinki: relativismo e vulnerabilidade. Cad Saúde Pública. 2001;17(3):679-88. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X2001000300022
19. Brasil Ministério da Saúde. Conselho Nacional de Saúde. Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa. Normas para pesquisa envolvendo seres humanos (Res. CNS n.º 196/96 e outras). 2 ed. ampliada. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde, 2003.
20. Dallari DA. Elementos de Teoria Geral do Estado. 20 ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 1998.
21. Barroso LR. Curso de direito constitucional contemporâneo: os conceitos fundamentais e a construção do novo modelo. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2009.
22. Nassif A. Mandado de Segurança n. 70030988893. Quinta Câmara Criminal, Tribunal de Justiça do Rio Grande do Sul, de 16 de setembro de 2009.
23. Barcellos AP. Normatividade dos princípios e o princípio da dignidade da pessoa humana na Constituição de 1988. Rev Direito Adm. 2000;221:159-88. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12660/rda.v221.2000.47588
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL PUBLISHERS
Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:
- Follow this code, and encourage the editors they work with to follow the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Edi- tors (http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/New_Code.pdf)
- Ensure the editors and journals they work with are aware of what their membership of COPE provides and en- tails
- Provide reasonable practical support to editors so that they can follow the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors (http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/New_Code.pdf_)
Publishers should:
- Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
- Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
- Protect intellectual property and copyright
- Foster editorial independence
Publishers should work with journal editors to:
- Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:
– Editorial independence
– Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research
– Authorship
– Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards
– Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor
– Appeals and complaints
- Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
- Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
- Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
- Maintain the integrity of the academic record
- Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
- Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
- Publish content on a timely basis
