5. Autonomy and bioethical challenge

Thoma Çomëni

As. Lecturer of Christian Ethics, Department of Theology & Culture, University College Logos, Tirana Corespondence: e-mail: thomacomeni@hotmail.com

Abstract

The paper tries to examine the phenomenon of autonomy within the spectrum of contemporary bioethical thought. Undoubtedly the dimension of the theme is great, as it relates to the dimension of human, the dimension of his relationship with God, and the dimension of his relationship with life. The paper places forward human, his dignity, usefulness and justice. Autonomy is part of human life. It appears and seeks to become part of human life, sometimes gently and sometimes being severely imposed by conditions. Human seeks it, as autonomy is not against him in essence, but with its distorted precision becomes several times disturbing and dictating in human life. Human dignity, the desire for rights and justice, makes autonomy not an element of human fulfillment, but of his denaturalization. Thus autonomy sometimes turns into incitement to murder by euthanasia and abortion, sometimes as incitement to suicide when it seeks to find human dignity, but away from the source of dignity. And this happens because autonomy instead of coming from the depths of human comes from external sources and even against his life. Thus autonomy becomes heteronymous and distant from human and his life. Dealing with it is a challenge for human.

Keywords:

autonomy, human, human dignity, utility, justice, human rights. Citation: Çomëni T. Autonomy and bioethical challenge. Theology & Culture. 2020; 1(2): 65-80. Doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12243.60963

Human is an important part of society. He lives in this society giving and receiving from it. It makes human an active part of him. Thus human lives in society and life can’t be perceived as something static but dynamic. The dynamics of human society unfold with change, transformation and movement. Thus, human and society are united by life, which has its own dynamism, which has changed at its center. Change as a phenomenon that exists in the relationship of human with society creates challenges, which give human the right to think, to form a critical attitude and to decide.

Critical attitude and human decisions are based on the moral law that is found and created within him. Through this law human can judge to be autonomous, which means to have the right, ability and condition to make their own decisions. The opposite happens when the law does not come from within human, but from factors outside his being. In this case he is no longer autonomous, but heteronymous (Mantzaridis, 2002, 123). The origin of these two terms, their variety and content create much discussion within the scientific and academic world. These discussions are created for the fact that the terms refer to human, his relationship with himself and with everything that surrounds him. So the question arises on the relationship that human must create between the law that is within him, as he has the power to create ethical law, but at the same time is exposed to the law that society has and offers. Thus to discuss autonomy at any time, as well as for the present time we must keep in mind that the notion of autonomy is related to human, because human can think and act autonomously. And when we refer to human we must take into account the wholeness and peculiarities of him, which bring us, closer to the attitudes and anthropological studies.

The term autonomy is also associated with theories about the cosmos. This connection is based on the role that human has within the world. As the biblical passage puts it, human is the crown of the creature1. Human’s existence, the role he has in the world, the internal moral law that functions within him make autonomy have a broader function than political, ideological and social content. This view is confirmed by the fact that autonomy today is discussed and analyzed from a bioethical point of view (Mantzaridis, 2002, 23). In bioethics it is considered the central value. Care, dignity, benefit, rights, etc. are

1 The book of Genesis tells us that human created by God, man and woman, “according to the image and likeness of God” and have domination over all that are in heaven, in the sea and on earth. These facts are found in the first two chapters of Genesis and not only.

elements on which today’s bioethics is based and expressed, but which at the same time the elements that shape to autonomy are.

1. Autonomy and human

Autonomy means living in accordance with the causes and stimuli that human has received as a product created by him. Since autonomy comes from within human it has to do with human’s thoughts and energies, just as he thinks it is right. So, autonomy is a connection with the logic of human, which is often deified by emphasizing that human can develop mainly by “the mind with its inner powers” (Anastasios 2004, 78).

Kant laid some foundations of autonomy by separating human reason from the human will. Human is a rational being. This feature distinguishes it from any other living being (Koios, 2006, 34). This means that human has two characteristics, the function of reason and the freedom of will, emphasizing good will (Stumpf, 2004, 305). Reason has critical ability, while freedom will. Goodwill is for Kant the criterion of appreciation for human actions. Although Kant distinguishes between logic and will, he makes absolutely no distinction between them because “to act freely - because Kant does not mean that he chooses what he wants, but what reason demands.” (Engelhardt, 2007, 126). In this way ethics is within the framework of logic, limiting the will to the limits of reason.

Human’s ability for reasoning and good will give him the opportunity to make decisions for himself. Erik Fromm, who is approximately two centuries after Kant makes a distinction between autarkic and humanistic morality by highlighting the possibility of humanistic morality and emphasizing human moral critique, even from childhood (Fromm, 2002, 4). For Fromm, as the initiator of progressive humanism is emphasized the ability of the human being to develop his power and achieve an inner harmony and the cementing of an inner world.

Striving for human autonomy by perfecting the skills of ethical critic and finding inner harmony, despite the positive predisposition, does not always bring positive consequences. This is because cosmic ethical thinking accepts and even agrees and applies with inspired human states (Koios, 2006, 151). That is, it does not contain all the ethical problems that human has. Even this ethical attitude often has the consequences of human infertility in achieving unity (Begzos, 1994, 252). The negative consequence of infertility for human unity comes from two factors: the absolutism of human logic and not the par-

The unity of human is defined in two directions: first, in human himself and second, in his relationship with others. Emphasizing the superiority of one organ of the body at the expense of other organs creates an invasion of that organ by other organs. For example, the mind expresses the logical part of the soul (Keselopoulos, 1982, 59), emphasizing its superiority can be at the expense of the passive part of the soul. Otherwise we can say that emphasizing the primacy of logic is at the expense of the other two powers of the soul, anger and desire. This attitude of superiority creates cracks in the unity of the function of the human soul. This means the breakdown of human unity. A person who has no unity within him finds it difficult to form a company of persons with others. This is one of the main reasons we have a society of individualism today.

Sometimes logic itself creates divisions. This division is created when there is an antithesis between right and good. This antithesis comes when the interest in the right does not create the intention for the good or when all the goods are not found in harmony with each other (Engelhardt, 2007, 117). Thus through the powers of his logic human will choose between right and good. This dilemma in human occurs when there is no superior being to refer to. This fact is joined by the limitation in the cosmic being of human. So the lack of reference to a superior being and the limitation to the limits of the cosmic world create the division of logic between right and good.

The existence of God or the denial of His existence is the essence on which human’s attitude towards himself and other people is founded. Here is the difference between cosmic and Christian anthropology. For Christian anthropology, human is a psychosomatic unity, a being created “in the image and likeness” of God (Gen. 1:27). By definition “according to the image” human is not something, but someone who comes into communication with God (Vantsos, 2010, 69) expressing his essential authority. This authority does not devalue the authority of autonomy, but complements it by giving it ontological content. Kant and Fromm have the opposite opinion and others who say that human should leave every superior being, that is, to be an autonomous being because he is a being that exists by itself in the world (Koios, 2006, 58).

Within the framework of humanistic anthropology, human autonomy is based on the emphasis on either the mind or the will, which affect the unity of human himself and consequently the unity of the world. In this way logic is based on the authority of autonomy in today’s cosmic thought. This autonomy

is related to the principle of dignity, that human is conceived as a goal in itself and not as a creature within the world and that depends on the Creator.

2. Human and human dignity

One of the basic principles of bioethics is the autonomy of the individual. This principle has been influenced by the liberal current, which has highlighted and deified human rights and individual freedom. Human rights are based on human dignity, equality and freedom.

In bioethics human dignity is related to autonomy. In the case of abortion the mother’s dignity is linked to her freedom to make decisions. Within this framework the woman has the right to make decisions about her self-determination, about her body, life and acceptance of motherhood. Thus the woman is considered a complete personality and the elements that define her are more important than the elements of the “non-existent” personality of the embryo (Vantsos, 2010, 157). Thus, considering the unborn baby as a person without personality is the essence that gives priority to the woman’s right to abortion (Rae, 1999, p.213). The fact that a person’s life and personality begins at the moment of conception is not taken into account and ignored (Smedes, 1999, 127). Within this view dignity from a defining element of human personality turns into selfish arrogance. The woman’s selfish attitude towards her life is confronted with the fact that the embryo did not come “uninvited” into her life. The cosmic dignity of the woman is found opposite the right to the dignity of the baby. The power of the woman tramples on the dignity of the baby. In this kind of dignity manifested in contemporary ethical thought, human “finds” his true meaning, being locked within his individualism and thus loses full and real communication with the world. He builds a dignity where he has lost his sense of kindness, respect, responsibility and obligation to others (Anastasios, 2004, 86).

The above statement shows us that human finds his dignity in knowing the dignity of other beings around him and this statement becomes stronger when these beings are as a result of his co-creative action. This dignity of the living human calculates the value and holiness that life itself has. The opposite occurs when human autonomous action lacks the interaction and value of life. Then a dignity is created that gives pleasure to life by interrupting the life of another. So, in this way, a woman in front of the life of the child to be born often decides the formation of professional engagement, the influence of the family, economic reasons or the right to self-determination (Vantsos,

2010, 158). She devalues the life of the child to be born before the secondary elements of life itself. In some cases, abortion is even dictated by the customary framework of society. Such cases occur and are present in the Albanian society where the termination of pregnancy is due to the gender of the child to be born. In case the first child to be born is a girl, then the pregnancy is terminated2. The reason is inheritance, because women in the Albanian customary tradition do not have the right to inherit (Luarasi, 2001, p.22), although this right is recognized by the Albanian legal framework. It is a way of human abusing the past by losing communication with either the past or the present and even more so with the future (Faros, 2003, 32). Thus in this case the dignity of the woman is faced with two elements: her powerlessness to bring up an heir, which derives from the powerlessness to give birth to a male heir, and the contempt from the family and social circle. On the one hand by aborting the female child the woman preserves her own dignity, but on the other hand she loses her autonomy because it is society that dictates this action. This is a case where dignity and autonomy do not match; even “dignity” weighs on autonomy.

Human dignity in everyday life faces various factors and elements that often in the name of freedom and human rights distort and alienate it. Dignity of this nature often appears in today’s bioethical thought. One of the cases is the departure of human from this life without pain and suffering, which is expressed with euthanasia. In order to preserve dignity, everyone is given the opportunity to decide and think freely, to decide and to act without the existence of any obligation. In this way, every human solution for health and in general for his whole life becomes respectable. In the case when a person suffers from a serious illness, dignity is intertwined with the decision for his life, even for its end. In these conditions human must make a decision about his life or its end in the conditions of unconsciousness (Ιερά Σύνοδος της Εκκλησίας της Ελλάδος, 2007, 32) or this is decided by others. In cases where the decision is made by the person himself to end his life in the case of an incurable disease he commits suicide. Whereas, when others decide he is an accomplice in the murder. Thus dignity is placed in the face of respect for life,

2 In Albania, the ratio between pregnancy and abortion is high compared to other European Union countries. In Albania the ratio is 1 to 3.6, while in Europe it is 1 to 5. So, in our country abortion is 21.8% and of which 43.68% is voluntary abortion and 56.32% is spontaneous, but that comes as a result of conditions and medical level. In Albania there is an unfair birth ratio between boys and girls, where the coefficient for boys are 112 and for girls are 100. This is an unnatural ratio and is probably influenced by various social factors http:// assembly.coe.int /Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta11/ERES1829.htm

pain and its purpose. In this way, in front of the need for dignity, the point of view that human has about life is placed. Under the pressure of biological pain and his desire to be freed from it human makes decisions in which pain is equated with life. This unit of life with pain “expresses” the value of life that human has in contemporary conditions. In some cases the problem becomes greater when end-of-life decisions are influenced by the costs of therapy or various lucrative actors. Within these factors human dignity suffers because it loses the value and sanctity of life, its metaphysical element and consequently its purpose. In this way under the influence of pain pressure, economic, ethical and profitable factors human loses his social dimension as well (Gioultsis, 2005, 152-153). Thus human dignity in the context of bioethics is related to the authority of autonomy, but in today’s conditions is related to the pressure of various social, economic and political factors.

The process and participation of many people in the case of euthanasia creates the impression of cooperation and relationship between persons. It is the process where the patient participates and cooperates, when he has his conscious will, the doctor with his advice and the relatives of the patient. The cooperation of the doctor for energetic euthanasia with the administration of medical drugs aimed at the death of a person, or passive euthanasia where the administration of drugs for the relief of pain, but which results in the death of the patient, can’t be called cooperation for life, but for its devaluation and its end.

The cooperation of relatives is also important. Even in the data of today’s society, the decision is made by the family members more than the sick one (Keselopoulos, 2003, 170-171). This cooperation for the end of the patient’s life creates a kind of relationship between persons. But cooperation between persons is real when it is not limited to the presence of persons, but how this presence works. In contemporary thought the meaning of the person is summed up in the existence of a being separate from other beings (Kuczewski, 2007, 192). It is this thought that emphasizes the passive acceptance of the other’s rights, rather than an “energetic action in the critical moments of a human being, wholehearted support in his development” (Anastasios, 2004, p.96). The relationship of people in today’s society is becoming more and more individual. From this perception it becomes understandable that human euthanasia as coming from the sick as coming from a relative or medical staff is an action against dignity. It is an action, which puts at the center the individual and personal interest of each factor, but not the spiritual and essential interest

of the person. This dignity is enslaved to individualism as it happens to other principles, which nowadays highlight individualism.

The emphasis on human rights, which often results in the creation of a morality of individuality, which is expressed in the relativism of human life or even more tragic forms such as suicide or murder. In the case of Euthanasia or abortion the results of individualistic morality are clearly visible. We not only find it in these two phenomena, but we also find it in the transplant phenomenon. And in the case of transplants it is important to say that the big problem is when the person ruins his or someone else’s life for a better life of someone else (Mantzaridis, 2003, 602). The problem arises when the organ donor is not respected, when there is a lack of freedom and awareness of action, when the life of the organ recipient and not the donor is emphasized (Ιερά Σύνοδος της Εκκλησίας της Ελλάδος, 2007, 11-12). Thus in this way the dignity of one person (organ recipient) becomes a burden for the dignity of another person (donor). It is this process where one person’s life is taken and given to another, where one’s life is destroyed to give life to another. This is a case that highlights the individualistic content of dignity.

The dignity of a person suffering from a serious illness is often related to the dignity of another person suffering from a serious illness. That is, it is permissible, or in the worst case, to expedite the departure of one person from this life in order to give life to another person. The reasons for the legitimacy of this action are the insensitivity or unresponsiveness of human on the one hand and on the other hand is the human sensitivity to death (Christodulides, 1995, 28-29). The perception of autonomy in this case, either by the patient or by relatives is related to the human being’s sensitivity to life. It is an ethic that expresses both sensitivity and insensitivity to life.

In order to preserve the dignity of a person who becomes an organ donor or is a beneficiary, it is necessary to know some principles, which are: “a. formulation of the truth, b. respect for the individuality and individuality of each person, c. provision of protection in reliable information, d. obtaining the consent of the patient for each intervention, e. to provide assistance when decision-making is required important and of course adherence to these principles” (Katsimingas & Vasilopoulou, 2010, 163). Within these principles of autonomy, human dignity is to decide for oneself and not to become a tool that one can use. In this way the process of euthanasia and transplants preserves the formulation of truth, freedom of decision, security in every intervention, real help in every intervention and preservation of the personality of the patient. From what we

saw above it becomes apparent how much human autonomy and dignity is violated. And this is because many times interests influence autonomous human decisions. Thus autonomy and dignity become principles that hang in the balance like meteors and unfounded, or in other words autonomy becomes heteronomy and dignity remains without dignity.

3. Autonomy and utility

The principle of autonomy is related to the principle of usefulness, which is expressed by good action and not causing harm or pain (Koisos, 2006, 147). The principle of usefulness is based on the ethical view of the benefit of the other, of happiness, of the satisfaction of many people and at the same time of avoiding his pain or harm.

Usefulness is associated with pain and pleasure. In the case of Euthanasia, the acceleration of the death of the suffering person is aimed at avoiding pain, and consequently this action has pleasure, as this action frees the person from pain. Simultaneously with the pleasure of avoiding injury and pain there is the possibility of a second pleasure. This opportunity for a second pleasure is based on the work of transplants that gives life opportunities to other people. Within this action pain and its avoidance are associated with a double pleasure. This action occurs when human places pain within the boundaries of ontology and where the value of life is transferred to pain. So human intervenes in the process of death. Human for no reason should interfere in the process of death, even in the case of transplantation. Human has the right to intervene to transform decay into offering (Hatzinikolaou, 2001, 300), as usefulness turns into uselessness.

A little while ago we saw that usefulness has to do with pain avoidance and pleasure. That is, the cause is pain, and from it begins the whole process of usefulness, and on which happiness is based. Today’s human finds no meaning in pain. This pain relief also works in the way of coping with it (Mantzaridis, 2003, 500). And above all its coping is done with external, utilitarian and aesthetic criteria. Thus the present age “the age of nihilism, of desire, of satiety with material goods and of superficial immortality takes on a tragic form, leading human to loss and despair. It is impossible for him to understand the other side of the disease, that is, to face it as a mediator for real benefit, as a blessing and a mediator of sanctification, as a meeting between God and human” (Ioannidis, 2009, 87-88). This coping with pain through the prism of a condition and not in the context of personal relationships between persons, gives the opportu-

nity to cope with the pain individually. It is a confrontation within the spirit of mechanics seeing human simply as a biological being without spiritual dimensions. It is the age when human does not lead the technology he creates himself, but is guided by it. Thus we can understand the work of abortion, in vitro fertilization, euthanasia and transplants, etc., in which the power of mechanics and technology can be the spiritual power of human.

Rational and mechanical spirit also creates cases where autonomy and usefulness come into conflict between them. In the process of communication between the patient and the medical staff there are cases where the principle of autonomy, the patient’s right to decide on the continuation of therapy may contradict the therapeutic scheme of the doctor. Or another case when the doctor’s indifference to the patient faces the patient’s desire for recovery and that may result in the loss of the patient’s life (Keselopoulos, 2003, 172). The individualism that has taken root in today’s world and the perception of individual relationships as relationships of persons makes it difficult and even impossible for the patient to understand the doctor. Thus the quality of life of the sick is limited within the cosmic framework in which the autonomy of the individual is found, which is often at odds with the meaning of life. This creates a clash between autonomy and heteronomy, where the doctor’s attitude is contrary to the patient’s wish.

If the person for the sake of pleasure or pressure of persons in the family and social circle is obliged to accept or reject the attitudes and advice of the doctor, then he loses autonomy. In this way human becomes heteronymous, as it is others who decide about his life and he is obliged to accept it. This state is created because autonomy within this world is created not as the formation of a society of persons, but as a society where one leaves the other, or where one person is a burden to another. Thus the autonomy of two people, at the same time and their usefulness in today’s reality focuses on the individualism of people. When two people do not become two persons and in their communication they do not have trust, respect and love, but their relationship remains in communication between the patient and the doctor then autonomy and usefulness have points of contact but are not strongly related to each other.

There is a contradiction between autonomy and utility “when we have utility of preferences, when the utility of material goods is not identified with happiness and well-being, but with the satisfaction of subjects” (Peonidis, 1994, 212) Thus in this way human loses the principle of autonomy, because human thinks, decides and acts under the pressure of some kind of coercion or imposition.

It is an antithesis where one comes where one makes any choices regarding health and life in general, but to please others.

Autonomy and utility is related to the presence of others. For example, in the case where the doctor is an important factor in the case of in vitro fertilization. He must make decisions in accordance with his perceptions and beliefs (Fanaras, 2000, 160). The autonomy of the doctor to decide is related to the tendency to satisfy the couple’s desire to have a child. But at the same time there are people who have objections to this process, because embryos can be destroyed. In this process, the doctor’s autonomy to decide, the satisfaction of the future parents and the right of the embryos to be destroyed are intertwined. The right to autonomy and satisfaction of doctors and parents is at odds with the right of the embryo to develop but to be destroyed. There are even worse cases when parents’ complacency about the birth of a child is related to economic interest, but at the expense of the embryo. In this way the embryo is not considered a human and a developing person, but a being who has no rights to human identity, life and eternity (Ιερά Σύνοδος της Εκκλησίας της Ελλάδος, 2007, 32). Thus it becomes clear that the recognition of human rights is an important event in human history, but this importance is lost when human while preserving his rights does not show distinction, respect and reverence for others (Anastasios, 2004, 82). The presence of many factors and people in the case of any medical process is a complex process because not only many people participate and relationships are individuals where everyone brings and protects their interest. In the case of in vitro fertilization it is the embryo that is lost, as we have the autonomy of the doctor and the mother, but not the autonomy of the embryo. As we have the usefulness of the doctor and the mother, but not that of the embryo.

Another case where there is an antithesis between autonomy and utility is the case of abortions. A woman’s autonomy for termination of pregnancy is related to the autonomy of the embryo. The various reasons that compel a woman to make this decision are generally based on the woman’s right to autonomy, which is also related to the satisfaction of desires and plans for life or to fulfill the desire of others. But this action contradicts the right of the embryo and because we have a contradiction between the autonomy of the woman and the right to life of an embryo. This action even brings to mind today’s reality where success, failure, life, health and progress are counted as quantity and numbers and not quality of life (Mantzaridis, 2001, 164). The paradox in this action is that the benefit and quality of life is related to the

destruction of a life.

4. Autonomy and justice

Autonomy is based on the principle of equality. The principle of equality is based on the fact that all people have their right to life and health. Autonomy and justice in the daily implementation of ethics can come into conflict between them. This clash comes to the surface when the equality of the therapeutic process comes into antithesis to the right to autonomy (Koisos, 2006, 118). There are cases for a therapeutic process, where the cost is high and the state care service does not cover the therapy and the only solution is financial credit, or early departure from this life. Here there is an unjust attitude of society, which contradicts the autonomy of the sick.

In the same line are the cases when through artificial insemination some embryos are given the opportunity to develop and some others are not given this opportunity. And what makes this injustice is the right of autonomy, of the most powerful persons to the impotence of the embryo. It is a clash, where the desire of the couple and the doctors on the one hand faces the right of the embryos to be destroyed on the other hand, who can’t support and preserve their right (Ιερά Σύνοδος της Εκκλησίας της Ελλάδος, 2007, 76). As there is a great injustice in the case of abortion, where an embryo doesn’t see the light of life because it is unwanted by his mother, persons of the family circle or of the social environment.

The problem of equality and justice should be discussed in the framework of love and not the removal of injustice, of real value to the person and not simply in the context of a rigorous legal process. The foundation of justice and equality is raised only in relation to God; in Him we find a perfect interplay between equality and love. In today’s world the combination of equality, justice and autonomy becomes impossible, especially in hot topics such as bioethics. This is because firstly equality, justice and autonomy are founded on relationships between persons and secondly they should not be founded away from the presence and principles of God (Mantzaridis, 2003, 541). Thus justice in bioethics, although there is no lack of legal framework will remain unenforceable because in the center of justice has taken root and human rights have been deified, and this “deification” creates conditions, which often contradict the concept of justice and equality.

The presence of autonomy in contemporary reality is factual, as are the facts and the consequences that flow from it. Autonomy expresses the human desire to step out of social frameworks. It expresses an ethical and political reaction against the authority of political and social systems, against rationalism and rules. It is a human endeavor to find the law of ethical judgment, which has internal authority. The concept of autonomy from ancient times to the present is based on and developed on human logic and freedom. According to the concept of contemporary Bioethics, human logic and freedom are sufficient for usefulness and good deeds, for not causing pain and harm, for equality and justice. It focuses on the interest of the individual and consequently individuals or other persons pass to a second level. This is because autonomy is based only on human, without referring to the nature, dimension and purpose of his existence on earth. It perceives human within the cosmic limits and metaphysical perceptions of the Enlightenment. So, autonomy develops only in the logic and freedom of human, but without counting his fallen state, his limitations, deformations and impossibilities.

Human’s critical thinking and attitude on these topics is guided by several canons, which attach importance to the attitudes and actions of the physician. That is, autonomy is a principle that gives the doctor the opportunity to have a critical attitude to human problems, which often does not happen, because in everyday practice precedes the power and authority of the most powerful, or economic and social interests. Thus one person’s human life is devalued in the face of trying to value another’s life. So the disclosure of the doctor’s critical attitude towards human problems often does not happen, because the possibility does not allow it or and when it can be influenced by various factors it turns into a negative action towards the human race. Actions in cases of euthanasia, in a part of transplants, abortion, artificial insemination, etc. are evidence of the above finding.

The critical attitude towards a form of manifestation towards autonomy has to do with the meaning of life. The positive side of autonomy is the ability of human to formulate an ethical attitude that flows from within him, that is, to relate to human life and to express it. While the negative side is when human with his actions loses or transforms the meaning, size and sanctity of life. We live in an age where autonomy is present as is the negative attitude when actions on its behalf are against the essence of the human being. Even

today there is a tendency for an absolutism or deification of autonomy because human dignity lies far from human relations, far from the cause, nature and purpose of human life. Within the spirit of individualism autonomy emerges as heteronomy. This happens because human does not obey any official and essential authority, but obeys the human will, whether it comes from family or kinship circle, or from friendly and social environment. So in the name of the desire for autonomy human found him willingly or unwillingly again under the power of heteronomy. Thus the human of today is living heteronymous autonomy, but above all he is experiencing the search and finding of autonomy, but perhaps the manner, means and points of reference are far from the truth. We pray and hope that the human being will find true autonomy. Then there will be human dignity and justice based on righteousness, sacrifice and divine love.

Mantzaridis I. G. (2002), Hristianiki Ithiki Ι’, Thessaloniki, P. Pournara. Mantzaridis I. G (2001), Παγκοσμιοποίηση και παγκοσμιότητα, Thessaloniki, Pournara. Humantzaridis I. G. (2003), Hristianiki Ithiki II’, Thessaloniki, P. Pournara. Anastasios Yannoulatos (Archbishop of Tirana and all Albania). (2004), Globalizmi dhe Orthodhoksia (trans. in Albanian K. Xhumba), Tirana, KOASH. Keselopoulos Anestis (1982), Passions and Virtues: According to Saint Gregory Palamas, Athens. Domos. Keselopoulos Anestis (2003), Ek tou thanato eis tin zoin, Thesaloniki, Pournara. Koios G. N. (2004), ep’eleutheria eklithite, Athens, Ath. Stamulis. Stumpf Enoch Samuel (2004), Philosophy – History and Problems (trans. in Albania), Tirana, Toena. Engelhardt Tristram H. (2007), The Foundations of Bioethics (trans. in Greek), Athens, Armos. Fromm S. Erich (2002), Human for himself, an inquiry into the psychology of ethics (trans. in Albania), Tirana. Begzos M. Marios (1994), Φιλοσοφική ανθρωπολογία της θρησκείας, Athens, Ellinika Grammata. Vantsos, Kr. Miltiadis (2010), Η ιερότητα της ζωής, Thessaloniki, K. Sfakianaki. Rae B. Scott B. (1999) Bioethics – A Christian Approach in a Pluralistic Age, Michigan. Wm. B, Eerdhumans. Smedes B. Lewis (1999), Mere Morality, Michigan, Wm. B, Eerdhumans. Luarasi Aleks (2001), Marrëdhëniet familjare, Tiranë, Luarasi. Philotheos Pharos (2004), Ithos aithes, Athens, Akritas. Ιερά Σύνοδος της Εκκλησίας της Ελλάδος, Sinodi i Hirshëm i Kishës se Greqisë (2007). Giultsis Vasileios (2005), Η άλλη θέαση του κοινωνικού, Thessaloniki, Purnara.

Kuczewski Mark G. & Polansky Roland (2007), Bioetics Ancient Themes in Contemporary Issues (Trans. in Greek), Athens, Traulos. Christodoulidis Kiprianos (1995), Μεταμοσχεύσεις. Λύση ή Πρόβλημα;, Athens, Ipakoi. Λύση ή πρόβλημα Katsimingas Georgios & Vasilopoulou Georgia (2010), Λειτουργική αναπηρία ασθενών με εγκεφαλική αιμορραγία, ισχαιμικό εγκεφαλικό επεισόδιο. To Vima tou Asklipiou, Vol. 9, Nr. 2, Aprill-Juny. Hatzinikolaou Nikolaos (2001), Η πνευματική ηθική και η παθολογία των μεταμοσχεύσεων - Η Εκκλησία και οι μεταμοσχεύσεις, Athens, OEE. Ioannidis Nikolaos (2009), Ασθένεια και πόνος στη Θεολογία των Πατέρων - Υγεία και Ασθένεια στη Λειτουργική Ζωή της Εκκλησίας, Athens, OEE. Paionidis Filimon (1994), Pseudologia kai Ithiki, Thessaloniki, Vanias. Fanaras Vasilios G. (2000), Υποβοηθούμενη Αναπαραγωγή, Thessaloniki, Palimpsiston.