END OF LIFE / Eluana is why after a law of Gabriel Toccafondi, Thursday, March 10, 2011, the sussidiario.net
the House kicked off Explanations of the debate on early treatment (DAT). It is striking that the law is little known especially by parliamentarians themselves, but even more surprising that in many opposing viewpoints and beliefs say: better no law to this law.
perhaps not surprising because we understand that this law is almost inevitable after the final ruling of the case Englaro and after the pronouncement of the Constitutional Court cases on appeal, a ruling that has created a way to form a euthanasia that others can easily follow. Surprising because without a "rule", which in some way from the declaration of the will of the patient, the same law would be virtually nothing, because the rulings and the ruling of the Constitutional Court require the legislature from our respect of declarations of will. Surprising, then, because the alternative would be anarchy of individual court rulings. It is a duty to make a law taking into account the stakes imposed by Eluana case, this is the reality: everything else is imagined and idealized, but does not correspond to reality.
Perhaps it's to go over what happened in the last three years in our country, because one thing is clear: no one wanted to make a law about this, but after the Englaro case has become a must. In the case of Eluana, it was put into practice also a form of euthanasia in Italy, it was decided that freedom can mean "freedom to die", it was ruled that you can take a path leading to a verdict on life and especially on a life defined flawed, testifying for the law or sentence which may not be the level for a more dignified life.
Currently in Italy there are about 3000 people in a vegetative state, there are dozens of cases ready to make the journey through the Italian courts and there are thousands of declarations of intention filed by notaries, municipalities and local authorities, documents that some association is ready to bring to court. With the ruling Englaro has created a precedent that their wills may be reconstructed or even derived from the "lifestyle". The risk is that of anarchy and not a legal case of euthanasia is asking those who speak loudly not to make this law.
This piece of legislation is clearly a barrier to the recurrence of cases such as Eluana. I repeat: it is a bank, knowing that the violence of the water may prevail. But this will make the levees is a law that clearly says "no" to euthanasia and 'no' zealous' treatment (Article 1 and Article 7).. It is a law that provides for an alliance and a relationship of trust between doctor and patient (Article 2) and in this want to understand clearly that no outsider could interpret the will of the patient compliance to treatment, that will set your doctor.
the wake of the award, and former Englaro, there are some that contain some points Dat (art. 3 and art. 4): the Declaration is relevant when it is given, written, signed, is no longer possible to reconstruct or imagine the statements of intention. Is relevant when it is determined that the patient is better able to understand, so if the failure is certain. It is valid 5 years old, and then the will must be expressed and confirmed. It must be entered in the medical record. Nutrition and hydration are not the subject of statements and can not be equated with medical treatment, except when they are no longer effective in providing nutritional factors.
in emergencies or when the subject is facing immediate danger to life, the Declaration does not apply (Article 4), the doctor applies the principle of inviolability of human life and health protection , according to the principles of precaution, prudence and proportionality (Article 7). The doctor has a central role both in the constant information to the patient cosciente, sia in seguito, quando lo stesso si trova nell’incapacità permanete di comprendere e quindi subentra la Dichiarazione di trattamento. In questo caso al paziente subentra il fiduciario da lui nominato (art. 6), che sarà l’unica persona autorizzata a interagire con il medico. In caso di controversia tra medico curante e fiduciario, la questione viene sottoposta a un collegio di medici (art. 7).
L’alternativa è l’anarchia delle sentenze di qualche tribunale che più che “accompagnare alla morte” determina la morte per legge, togliendo acqua e cibo a chi non aveva mai detto di voler morire ed era amorevolmente accudito. Che società è quella che chiama la vita “un inferno” e la morte “una liberazione”? La sospensione dell’alimentazione di Eluana è stata un omicidio, così come è omicidio quello che qualche associazione e qualche deputato dichiarano nella loro volontà di aprire all’eutanasia. La questione è poi aggravata dal fatto che si è voluto impedire l’esercizio della carità, perché c’è chi si stava prendendo cura di Eluana e, come dichiarato pubblicamente, avrebbe continuato gratuitamente a farlo. Una disponibilità che vale anche per tanti altri casi.
La storia del nostro popolo è un’altra. La storia della medicina has progressed when he began attending the "incurable", which were previously expelled from the community of men "healthy," left to die outside the city walls or deleted. Who began to care for incurable did for a reason which was more powerful than life itself: a passion for the destiny of man. The same story comes from this hospital. A story that now makes a sharp reversal.
Eluana's case, and the debate on this law, puts forward the first evidence that emerges in our lives: we do not do it alone. We wanted to be an Other. "Even the hairs of your head are counted. " To reject this evidence means reject the reality and rejects those who reject the reality of life.
© Playing reserved.
0 comments:
Post a Comment