Max Scheler: o conceito de pessoa e as críticas de Martin Heidegger

Abstract

O presente trabalho tem como objetivo apresentar a noção de pessoa na antropologia de Max Scheler, bem como reconstruir as considerações críticas a ela dirigidas por Martin Heidegger. Na primeira parte, esboçaremos o conceito de pessoa nos trabalhos sobre ética e também no livro A posição do homem no cosmos. A seguir, examinaremos a relação entre o conceito de pessoa e as noções de alma, organismo, corpo e mundo, identificando o traço diferenciador do ser da pessoa em relação à mera substância dada no cosmos. Por último, reconstruiremos a crítica de Martin Heidegger à noção de pessoa, oferecendo uma comparação entre as noções de pessoa e ser-aí (Dasein).Pessoa. Antropologia. Fenomenologia. Scheler. Heidegger. PALAVRAS CHAVEPerson. Anthropology. Phenomenology. Scheler. Heidegger. KEYWORDS This paper aims to present the notion of person in Max Scheler's anthropology and rebuild critical considerations addressed by Martin Heidegger. The first part will outline the concept of person in work on ethics and also in the book The Human Place in the Cosmos. Next, we examine the relationship between the concept of person and notions such as soul, organism, body and world, identifying the distinctive feature of being of the person with regard to mere substance given in the cosmos. Finally, we rebuild the criticism of Martin Heidegger to the notion of person, offering a comparison of notions of person and being-there (Dasein).

Humanized childbirth: the values of health professionals in daily obstetric care

“…Such modes are established in/with the co-responsibility process for the transformation of the work reality itself and in the set of actors. This highlights the close relationship between senses, motivation, satisfaction, and perception of value (3)(4)(5)(6) that configures the aspects of live work (23) .…”

“…These changes are the result of the collective construction of the movement initiated by women, professionals, health administrators, and researchers since the 1980s in favor of maternal and child health. Such changes allowed for a redefinition of the obstetric practices of health professionals, in line with Schelerian values (3)(4)(5)(6) , that is, supported by respect, quality of care, protagonism, autonomy, women's satisfaction, safety, and care anchored in scientific evidence (7)(8)(9)(10)(11) . However, the excess of unnecessary interventions is still part of daily care, including in maternity hospitals in Brazil.…”

“…Therefore, the movement for the humanization of childbirth has expanded public health policies in the reproductive field since the 2000s to qualify maternal and childcare and provide dignified and respectful care for women, encouraging their autonomy and protagonism, guaranteeing their sexual, reproductive, and human rights, as well as their values (3)(4)(5)(6)(15)(16)(17)(18) . This movement enabled a line of interventions consistent with Goal 5 (Improving maternal health) of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); and currently with Goal 3 (Health and well-being) of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).…”

“…Among these interventions is the creation of public policies such as: Programa de Humanização no Pré-natal e Nascimento [Prenatal and Birth Humanization Program] (PBHP) (10) ; Política Nacional de Humanização [National Humanization Policy] (NHP) (19)(20) ; Estratégia Rede Cegonha [Stork Network Strategy] (11,20) ; in addition to the new MH's National Guidelines for Assistance to Normal Childbirth (21) . Such policies promoted accessibility and resoluteness; expansion of obstetric care; construction/renovation of units; training/alteration of professional conduct; reorganization of the work process with an emphasis on the collaborative model of a multidisciplinary team; encouragement of normal/natural/physiological childbirth; and reduction of obstetric interventions (22) , with the valuation of subjectivity, individuality of care and of women's values and expectations (3)(4)(5)(6)(15)(16)(17)(18) .…”