Here I propose to you the statement of the LAV (Linera Bar Association)
The Supreme Court declared inadmissible the application of the Attorney General in Milan for lack of standing to bring the alleged consequent lack of public interest in the story: it is therefore became final decision of the Court of Appeal of Milan to authorize the termination of ' nutrition and hydration of Eluana, condemned as a horrible death.
The choice of the Supreme Court is built on the culture for which the individual would have a sort of "absolute right" of self-determination, can not be fettered by the limitations of the legal system. Such a view, through a clear strategy, does not hesitate to subvert the fundamental principles of our legal system, which gives nature rather unavailable to the assets of the health and life. Just read what was said just a year ago in the decision of the Court of Rome on the "Welby case" to be aware of this cultural decline as fast as more and more dangerous. In this
decision (which is questionable in its conclusions) may not hold recognized that the refusal of life-saving treatments "on behalf of the patient, the child's legal representative or infirmity of mind, since he has the title only to carry out operations in favor of life and not to the detriment of the represented person "and that the patient can perform acts of disposal "Only if it is fully aware of his physical and mental condition, prospects of development of his condition and the consequences that can result from
his choices, because otherwise their will be marred by distorted or missing elements of knowledge and therefore not free" . Or again, underlining the necessity "of the refusal is not sufficient that the person has previously expressed its willingness to do so" and that therefore the refusal "must persist when the doctor is preparing to implement the will of the patient. " These assumptions in the case of Eluana no trace. Eluana is not at all "self-determined" to require discontinuation of feeding and hydration. Others have not already requested on the basis of formal declarations Eluana, but of mere comments were expressed by her
not less than seventeen years ago in connection with accidents involving other people comments obviously dictated by the emotion of time and can not in any way to suggest a willingness to uniquely Eluana let alone its relevance. It is evidence so flimsy that if you used to support decisions of other people do not hesitate to say that the will of the subject is non-existent or flawed, or not ascertained unequivocally.
When, as happened in the case of Eluana, justice, in place to protect the most vulnerable and helpless, authorizing the withdrawal, it is a sign that we live in an age of barbarism.
Where again then? It 'been stated that "in the history of medicine, its development has become more fruitful when, in the Christian era, began its assistance to the" incurable ", which were previously expelled from the community of men" healthy, "left to die out the city walls or deleted. Who would have occupied if he had risked his own life. For this who began caring for the incurable did for a reason which was more powerful than life itself: a passion for the destiny of man, for his infinite value because the image of God the Creator. "
E 'urgent that the right back to "serve" and to "defend" a conception of life on this scale which reaffirmed the absolute value of the person, in whatever condition it is found, rather than justify the subtle self-destructive spiral in which we are almost unconsciously slipping.
Milan, November 18, 2008 Free Bar Association
0 comments:
Post a Comment