Discipline: Philosophy, Social Science
The purpose of this paper is to do an ethical case analysis of a 38 year old man who found himself in hypoclycopenia coma. This is a real clinical case that happened in a hospital in Nigeria. The paper shall adopt the Padova method of ethical deliberation.1This was a method I learned doing the Erasmus Mundus Masters in Bioethics I took part in Italy. The advantage of this method for clinical case analysis is that it covers a wide range of areas. It does not only see the medical and cultural aspect as important in any clinical case deliberation but also see the personal and relational aspect of the patient as an area to be considered. This gives the opportunity to assess the case with a critical mind without leaving out any relevant aspect. It also gives human dignity utmost consideration.
ISSN 2094-1188 (Print)
Philippine E-Journals
All Comments (1)
Hannah Cartalla
7 days ago
Reading “The Place of Human Dignity in Non-voluntary Euthanasia” invites deep reflection on one of the most challenging ethical issues in healthcare: whether ending a life without the explicit consent of the person involved can ever be morally justified. The article examines a real clinical case of a man in a coma and uses an ethical deliberation framework to analyze how human dignity must remain central to any decision about life and death. ([Philippine EJournals][1]) At its core, the paper highlights that human dignity is not a simple abstract concept, but a principle that requires respect for the intrinsic worth of every individual, regardless of their medical condition. Even when a patient cannot express wishes due to incapacity, decisions about their life should not reduce them to objects of calculation or merely clinical outcomes. Human dignity demands that we consider not only biological life but also the personal and relational aspects of the patient — such as their life story, relationships, and what they would likely want if they could communicate. ([Philippine EJournals][1]) This reflection makes me think critically about how modern healthcare sometimes risks prioritizing what seems “practical” or “efficient” over what preserves human worth. In societies where euthanasia debates are framed around autonomy and relief from suffering, it is still crucial to remember that not all suffering can be measured, and not all life can be judged by pain or disability alone. Even non-voluntary euthanasia — which involves making decisions for someone who cannot consent — must be scrutinized through the lens of dignity, not merely convenience. ([Philippine EJournals][1]) Moreover, this piece reminds me of how cultural, legal, and religious contexts shape our understanding of dignity. In the Philippines, euthanasia — whether voluntary or not — remains controversial and generally illegal, partly because it conflicts with the constitutional commitment to respect life and dignity. For example, discussions in Philippine legal and ethical circles emphasize that life cannot simply be evaluated in terms of suffering or perceived quality, but is a right that should be protected in every stage and circumstance. ([SunStar Publishing Inc.][2]) Personally, the article encourages a more compassionate and nuanced approach to end-of-life issues. Rather than seeing euthanasia as a quick answer to suffering, I now better appreciate how true dignity involves preserving human value until the very end, seeking comfort, care, and respect for the person’s humanity. Decisions about life and death should be grounded in empathy, understanding, and profound respect — not just technical reasoning. This doesn’t mean ignoring suffering, but it does mean engaging with it in ways that honor, rather than diminish, human worth. ([Philippine EJournals][1])