Argomento sempre caldo e dibattuto, l’eutanasia non smette di fornire spunti per discussioni interessanti, anche se, è innegabile, spesso hanno la brutta tendenza a degenerare rapidamente. Troppo diverse le posizioni in campo, arroccate su opposti spesso inconciliabili ed incapaci di un dialogo costruttivo. Menti brillanti offuscate dalle proprie convinzioni risultano nient’altro che un cavallo coi paraocchi che vorrebbe correre nel prato ma non smette di andare a sbattere contro qualche albero.
Lungi da me addentrarmi in questo campo minato, non se ne uscirebbe più. Non si può dire cosa è giusto o cosa non lo è, come si pretende spesso di fare, ma penso ognuno abbia la propria opinione in merito ed andrebbe rispettata.
Under the term euthanasia may fall many situations, very different from one another. When you make a speech on the first one should bear in mind this basic starting point. Broadly speaking, one can speak of voluntary euthanasia (when there is an express request of the patient) and involuntary (eg when the patient is incompetent, unable to express their opinion). Of active euthanasia, when working in a direct (eg by giving special substances) to procure the death of the patient and passive euthanasia, where death comes to indirect causes (for example, when you have to abstain from actions that would keep the patient alive). Other cases that need to be present and often falling in the speech are the so-called assisted suicide (when there is no direct intervention of third parties but it is the patient to end their own lives to avoid further suffering with knowledge / resources provided by the doctor ) and the fierce therapy (the use of life-prolonging medical procedures in order to artificially support the vital functions of people with incurable diseases).
In these brief definitions, behind these very general terms waving a large variety of situations, depending on the clinical picture of the patient.
The situation must be assessed from several points of view that should be split in order to assess the issue peacefully, but discussions in religious, legal, political, ethical, medical, philosophical, moral, scientific obtusely continue to stagnate always the same spots.
However, no denying, even within each of us there are opposing forces that we could do to favor one or the other way.
One solution could be the much-cited living wills in which each person express their will in conditions of mental clarity, on the therapies that will or will not accept in the event that should be in a position of inability to express their right to consent or not consent to the proposed treatment for diseases o lesioni traumatiche cerebrali irreversibili o invalidanti, malattie che costringano a trattamenti permanenti con macchine o sistemi artificiali che impediscano una normale vita di relazione.
Perché, ricordiamolo, la costituzione italiana, all’art. 32 sancisce: “Nessuno può essere obbligato a un determinato trattamento sanitario se non per disposizione di legge. La legge non può in nessun caso violare i limiti imposti dal rispetto della persona umana.”
Il testamento biologico penso potrebbe risolvere molte questioni, rilanciando tra l’altro la libertà di scelta di ognuno di noi. Ognuno potrebbe valutare preventivamente pro e contro di ogni sua decisione in merito e metterlo per iscritto in maniera che le sue volontà can be adhered to in case there is one particular situation.
Living in a democratic country where "personal freedom is inviolable" and "everyone has the right to express freely their ideas, perhaps one would expect that such a" testament "was already in use for years. Each person should be sovereign in his private life, free from constraints imposed by others, and to follow their own assessment that coscienza.Per as I'm concerned if I never had anything happen to prevent me from living in a dignified manner, that held me riveted on a hospital bed, that would make me dependent on drugs, cars etc, which I did only to be a burden to others, I hope no one will object to let me go in peace, maybe help me if I was not able to do it alone. You may think differently, but for me that is not life.
Lungi da me addentrarmi in questo campo minato, non se ne uscirebbe più. Non si può dire cosa è giusto o cosa non lo è, come si pretende spesso di fare, ma penso ognuno abbia la propria opinione in merito ed andrebbe rispettata.
Under the term euthanasia may fall many situations, very different from one another. When you make a speech on the first one should bear in mind this basic starting point. Broadly speaking, one can speak of voluntary euthanasia (when there is an express request of the patient) and involuntary (eg when the patient is incompetent, unable to express their opinion). Of active euthanasia, when working in a direct (eg by giving special substances) to procure the death of the patient and passive euthanasia, where death comes to indirect causes (for example, when you have to abstain from actions that would keep the patient alive). Other cases that need to be present and often falling in the speech are the so-called assisted suicide (when there is no direct intervention of third parties but it is the patient to end their own lives to avoid further suffering with knowledge / resources provided by the doctor ) and the fierce therapy (the use of life-prolonging medical procedures in order to artificially support the vital functions of people with incurable diseases).
In these brief definitions, behind these very general terms waving a large variety of situations, depending on the clinical picture of the patient.
The situation must be assessed from several points of view that should be split in order to assess the issue peacefully, but discussions in religious, legal, political, ethical, medical, philosophical, moral, scientific obtusely continue to stagnate always the same spots.
However, no denying, even within each of us there are opposing forces that we could do to favor one or the other way.
One solution could be the much-cited living wills in which each person express their will in conditions of mental clarity, on the therapies that will or will not accept in the event that should be in a position of inability to express their right to consent or not consent to the proposed treatment for diseases o lesioni traumatiche cerebrali irreversibili o invalidanti, malattie che costringano a trattamenti permanenti con macchine o sistemi artificiali che impediscano una normale vita di relazione.
Perché, ricordiamolo, la costituzione italiana, all’art. 32 sancisce: “Nessuno può essere obbligato a un determinato trattamento sanitario se non per disposizione di legge. La legge non può in nessun caso violare i limiti imposti dal rispetto della persona umana.”
Il testamento biologico penso potrebbe risolvere molte questioni, rilanciando tra l’altro la libertà di scelta di ognuno di noi. Ognuno potrebbe valutare preventivamente pro e contro di ogni sua decisione in merito e metterlo per iscritto in maniera che le sue volontà can be adhered to in case there is one particular situation.
Living in a democratic country where "personal freedom is inviolable" and "everyone has the right to express freely their ideas, perhaps one would expect that such a" testament "was already in use for years. Each person should be sovereign in his private life, free from constraints imposed by others, and to follow their own assessment that coscienza.Per as I'm concerned if I never had anything happen to prevent me from living in a dignified manner, that held me riveted on a hospital bed, that would make me dependent on drugs, cars etc, which I did only to be a burden to others, I hope no one will object to let me go in peace, maybe help me if I was not able to do it alone. You may think differently, but for me that is not life. 
0 comments:
Post a Comment