Dragon Ball Doujinshis Online

Topics - Blunders copyright, there is a reply to all of Alberto Gambino, events, March 10, 2011

A law 'illiberal' which us "expropriation" of the right to decide on our lives and prevents us from seeing forcing its will to run a «vita artificiale». Una norma dettata dalla caccia ai «consensi» perduti, che infligge l’alimentazione «forzata»...

Dibattito virtuale con intellettuali e politici che si sono espressi aspramente su un provvedimento che avversano

Si susseguono in questi giorni le pre­se di posizione di voci autorevoli sulla legge che dovrà normare il «fine vita». Ecco alcune tra le numerosissime frasi che incalzano la nostra capacità di analisi e di giudizio, con altrettante risposte.

1.

"If this law were approved, each of us would lose the basic right to self-determination, would be dispossessed of the right to freely govern their own lives" (Stefano Rodota, February 21). The so-called right to self-determination not to be found in any law of the Italian State, nor in our Constitution. It is rather a creation of case law, supported by a part of our constitutional doctrine, which has embraced the principles of some foreign legal systems of common law, that is based on the drafting of judgments and, therefore, on una casistica sempre diversa. Il sistema giuridico italiano garan­tisce la libertà di governare la propria vita, ma trattandosi appunto di una libertà non è automatico che il diritto positivo (cioè regole giuridiche idonee a darne esecuzio­ne) debba sempre assecondarla. In parti­colare, ove una scelta individuale contrasti con i valori costituzionali della tutela del­la salute e della vita umana, l’ordinamen­to legislativo non offre strumenti di attua­zione, ma anzi sanziona chi volesse aiuta­re altri a portare a termine i propri intenti autolesionistici: è il caso dei reati di suici­dio assistito e omicidio del consenziente. Quindi ha il sapore di uno slogan affer­mare che la legge sul fine vita esproprie­rebbe citizens of the "fundamental right to self-determination ', since that right today, in Italy, operates within the limits specified.

2.

"It's messy and contradictory in itself a law which says the citizen: 'do well will, but know that is not binding, and that on two crucial issues such as hydration and nutrition artificial person in a vegetative state, your will can not be heard "(Giuliano Ferrara, 22 February). This is not to 'test', because our legal system does not consider the health and the human body as if they were 'things' (being one expressly prohibited by Article 5 of the Italian Civil Code). Precisely because it is not things, but their lives and their health, the last word should be left to those who, like the doctor, have the tools to assess the possibility of a therapy. For this reason, advance directives can not be binding, otherwise the doctor would turn into mere executor of the will of others. Instead, it is the right decision in medical science and consciousness to ensure better protection of life and health of the patient, which - we must always remember – è il soggetto psicologicamente e fi­siologicamente più debole di tutta la vi­cenda.

3.

«La legge in discussione di fron­te al tremore di una scelta tragica, invece di assumerne la gravosa responsabilità (continuare o sospendere nutrizione e idratazione artificiali), decide di estro­mettere la volontà del soggetto. E di affi­dare la scelta, conseguentemente, all’ap­parato biotecnologico» (Luigi Manconi, 1 marzo). L’«apparato biotecnologico» di cui parla Manconi è un sondino che veicola liquidi per sostentare il paziente. The tragic choice is whether to introduce euthanasia in Italy or not: this means stop nutrition and hydration made with the detachment of the tube. Since the line of the law is to exclude forms of euthanasia, there is a logical consequence of the foreclosure introduce euthanasia in Dat, as would an indication to the doctor to stay parenteral nutrition and hydration.

4.

"It's an unconstitutional law that wants to force people to artificial life" (Umberto Veronesi, March 2). Whenever a law does not correspond to their setting, it is argued that it is 'unconstitutional'. The bodies of Members to consider the constitutionality of a law are, in advance, the Parliament (and the party with which he was elected Veronesi, the Democratic Party, has ruled out raising exceptions of unconstitutionality of the law on Dat) and the Head of State. Then, a law passed, it will be the Constitutional Court, where it was invested with the problem, to determine compliance with the Italian Constitution. Since, however, this law does not innovate than those already provided in our system, whether it was unconstitutional should already be present all the practices and health protocols, providing that the doctor can not satisfy the wishes of the patient euthanasia.

5.

"Having lost support for having too dirty games with the body beautiful and available young women, trying to recover more playing with the choirs 'vegetative state', male and female, young or old they are" (Federico Orlando, March 2).

is a phrase in effect typical of a liberal sarcastic as Orlando, however, reminds us that the ethics of behavior and conduct with our transparency initiatives for the protection of life and health. Themes can not be reduced into partisan camps.

6.

"If surgery is inserted through a plastic tube in the intestine of the patient to power by force, that is not power, is a cure" (Ignazio Marino, March 5). No, because that pipe does is allow the passage of vital fluids. If the patient was conscious might reject it. But the freedom to refuse to supply and hydration and, therefore, of letting die can not be transposed on a written document delegating the implementation to a doctor, who would act as executor and therefore shared by the choice of euthanasia. The theme of renunciation in terms of a written nutrition and hydration is just a variation of the paradigm of self-determination. Those who claim it is obvious that the absoluteness of self-determination also considers the legitimate request for euthanasia, where the discontinuation of parenteral support represents a technique (which is more exhausting active euthanasia). Less consistent is the position of those who - in fund does not explicitly speak of euthanasia - identifies an event of an interruption of hydration from an alleged aggressive treatment (when, among other things, doctors and judges so they have not qualified just in case Englaro).

7.

"I think there is a very simple half to cut the head of the bull laid down by law that the same Dat can not contain any provision in a positive, that is to do anything, but only in negative, not to do "(Ernesto Galli della Loggia, 6 March). It is a really nice sophistry to say that the problems are resolved by allowing the Dat there are only indications not to do. Do not do what? A gradation of operations more or less invasive and, therefore, proportionate and necessary, otherwise it would come in Dat events, as mentioned, of passive euthanasia. But at this point who can really tell us whether this intervention is appropriate and proportionate, if not the medical knowledge and belief? In conclusion, we are very careful that you do not hide behind ideology autodeterministica really cynical demands of purely economic order aimed at finding a way out to the cost of vegetative states and, in general, of incurable diseases, which weighs each year - as well as on family ties - even on cases of public finance.