"I fight your idea, which is different from mine, but I am ready to fight until the price of my life, for you, your idea, to express it freely "(Voltaire). This phrase, in my opinion, expresses better than any other, the strong and unbreakable bond between freedom, thought and law, beyond any vision of personal and religious and political beliefs, beyond every limitation or constraint of the beyond intimidation, beyond all reason of state. And it is in the name of this freedom, so hard to combine, but at the same time, so abused, exploited, injured, abused, we should respect the rights of each person and is in the name of this freedom that we should legislate.
But this government, which believed to be holding the truth - in a field in which every creed deserves respect - he presented a bill, on end of life, clearly part of the ideological and, contrary to the very idea of \u200b\u200bthe law, which should be written for all citizens and not a part of them, which should never be able to have a "principal", or having to please someone.
First I should mention that in Italy it was necessary for a law on advance directives for treatment (DAT) as a living will - today - has no legal value. This means that our will, even if you leave in writing, will be confronted with those of the doctor who will keep us in care during the last moments of our lives and to whom it will be the last word on treatment, more or less useful, more or less invasive, perhaps redundant, as designed not to cure but to perpetuate a needless agony of suffering and made poor dignity for an indefinite time. For this it was necessary to give Italians a law that would protect the wishes of the citizens about end of life. A law that would guarantee the city with a binding decision-making autonomy, or at least challenging, as in the case of informed consent in the DAT are the physiological continuation. That informed consent to ratification of the conscious patient adherence to medical treatment proposed dal medico e che trova fondamento nei principi espressi negli art. 2, 13 e 32 della nostra Costituzione che vieta i trattamenti sanitari obbligatori.
Da uomo liberale vorrei una legge che non sia né arrogante né autoritaria, e perciò come è giusto prevedere che un paziente, in base alla propria fede, desideri ricorrere a tutti gli atti medici e presidi terapeutici, inclusa la nutrizione/idratazione, per allungare artificialmente la sua vita e sia in pieno diritto di farlo, così questo benedetto diritto dovrebbe valere anche nel caso opposto.
Certa politica italiana, invece, si è impossessata delle nostre volontà, e con un testo di legge palesemente di parte ed incostituzionale vuole obbligarci a forme di trattamenti that defines life support (nutrition and hydration) in spite of any medical-scientific principle.
And then I wonder:
- it is legitimate to legislate in an area as sensitive, which is about what is most dear to us - our lives - without a serenity and an intellectual honesty?
- it is right to legislate according to a religious belief in a State which by definition is secular? And without taking into account that among the citizens there are also agnostics, non-believers and other believers?
- it is right to require by law probes, catheters, infusion catheters, and even those who do not want them? It 'just that modern medicine evading, hiding, the patient's death?
- è giusto che la stessa medicina in nome di un progresso tecnologico, determini un prolungamento artificiale della malattia, con morti più lente e spesso sofferenze maggiori?
- è giusto che il cittadino perda improvvisamente i suoi diritti sanciti dal consenso informato non appena diventa incosciente?
Ed ancora:
- com’è credibile uno Stato che invoca l’indisponibilità della vita come principio inderogabile e innegoziabile contraddicendo palesemente la realtà in cui si può decidere di morire rifiutando una trasfusione di sangue, la dialisi o l’amputazione di un arto affetto da gangrena?
Io credo che esistano delle condizioni patologiche irreversibili in cui la medicina si debba fermare "Even if this causes frustration and despair" - in the words of the enlightened Cardinal Martini, as this would exceed in an endless form of aggressive treatment that - in words - no one wants, but by law, this law would be implemented .
I think that in Italy a law is necessary to have at heart the health of the patient and not life itself.
I think it means freedom to choose, can continue to manage his own life when the mind has abandoned us and when we are no longer masters of our bodies. I believe that no one can claim the right to determine the extent to which my position can go to my therapy as well as anyone should be able to decide to deprive me of a dignified death.
's why I approached the process of this measure, stripped of any ideological or religious consideration to which they bear. An approach based on respect for the individual and therefore compliance to all citizens, beyond their political faith and their beliefs, I try to represent as worthy, in this Parliament.
But this government, which believed to be holding the truth - in a field in which every creed deserves respect - he presented a bill, on end of life, clearly part of the ideological and, contrary to the very idea of \u200b\u200bthe law, which should be written for all citizens and not a part of them, which should never be able to have a "principal", or having to please someone.
First I should mention that in Italy it was necessary for a law on advance directives for treatment (DAT) as a living will - today - has no legal value. This means that our will, even if you leave in writing, will be confronted with those of the doctor who will keep us in care during the last moments of our lives and to whom it will be the last word on treatment, more or less useful, more or less invasive, perhaps redundant, as designed not to cure but to perpetuate a needless agony of suffering and made poor dignity for an indefinite time. For this it was necessary to give Italians a law that would protect the wishes of the citizens about end of life. A law that would guarantee the city with a binding decision-making autonomy, or at least challenging, as in the case of informed consent in the DAT are the physiological continuation. That informed consent to ratification of the conscious patient adherence to medical treatment proposed dal medico e che trova fondamento nei principi espressi negli art. 2, 13 e 32 della nostra Costituzione che vieta i trattamenti sanitari obbligatori.
Da uomo liberale vorrei una legge che non sia né arrogante né autoritaria, e perciò come è giusto prevedere che un paziente, in base alla propria fede, desideri ricorrere a tutti gli atti medici e presidi terapeutici, inclusa la nutrizione/idratazione, per allungare artificialmente la sua vita e sia in pieno diritto di farlo, così questo benedetto diritto dovrebbe valere anche nel caso opposto.
Certa politica italiana, invece, si è impossessata delle nostre volontà, e con un testo di legge palesemente di parte ed incostituzionale vuole obbligarci a forme di trattamenti that defines life support (nutrition and hydration) in spite of any medical-scientific principle.
And then I wonder:
- it is legitimate to legislate in an area as sensitive, which is about what is most dear to us - our lives - without a serenity and an intellectual honesty?
- it is right to legislate according to a religious belief in a State which by definition is secular? And without taking into account that among the citizens there are also agnostics, non-believers and other believers?
- it is right to require by law probes, catheters, infusion catheters, and even those who do not want them? It 'just that modern medicine evading, hiding, the patient's death?
- è giusto che la stessa medicina in nome di un progresso tecnologico, determini un prolungamento artificiale della malattia, con morti più lente e spesso sofferenze maggiori?
- è giusto che il cittadino perda improvvisamente i suoi diritti sanciti dal consenso informato non appena diventa incosciente?
Ed ancora:
- com’è credibile uno Stato che invoca l’indisponibilità della vita come principio inderogabile e innegoziabile contraddicendo palesemente la realtà in cui si può decidere di morire rifiutando una trasfusione di sangue, la dialisi o l’amputazione di un arto affetto da gangrena?
Io credo che esistano delle condizioni patologiche irreversibili in cui la medicina si debba fermare "Even if this causes frustration and despair" - in the words of the enlightened Cardinal Martini, as this would exceed in an endless form of aggressive treatment that - in words - no one wants, but by law, this law would be implemented .
I think that in Italy a law is necessary to have at heart the health of the patient and not life itself.
I think it means freedom to choose, can continue to manage his own life when the mind has abandoned us and when we are no longer masters of our bodies. I believe that no one can claim the right to determine the extent to which my position can go to my therapy as well as anyone should be able to decide to deprive me of a dignified death.
's why I approached the process of this measure, stripped of any ideological or religious consideration to which they bear. An approach based on respect for the individual and therefore compliance to all citizens, beyond their political faith and their beliefs, I try to represent as worthy, in this Parliament.
0 comments:
Post a Comment