not take your shotgun 
came a little late to the outpouring of posts on
the drama and the death of Eluana Englaro . Unfortunately the debate has been heavily polluted by political positions than anything else (including religion and faith). Hence, the thing you were able to settle virtually arbitrary application with a formula "Euthanatos" (off) without discussing whether this was a graceful exit for her.
What if? The long process undertaken by the father of Eluana primary objective was the pursuit of law, so that considerations of dignity and humanity of the young were out of place inevitably displaced by the demarcation of the limits of "human" as required law. Needless
realize what doors open record like this. Under this pragmatism can be applied to the same final solution to others more or less faced with extreme situations of all kinds. Suffice to set limits to proceed: not only to "human", but other pipe dreams as "bearable", "worth it", "the cool", etc. Needless to say about
shows that the proclamation of such limits leads.
there other options? Absolutely. In my opinion, were always on hand of Mr. Beppino. The English blogger
Yosoyhayek explains:
1. Assisted Suicide: man freely decide on the continuation of his life. When you can not physically infringes himself (suicide), has no choice but to ask for help. In this situation are necessary partners, who assist him in his suicide, the first surround interested in all possible guarantees, witnesses, notaries, tax will unquestionable issued by asking for help ...
2. Declaration of intention prior to the connection to artificial life support , or initiation of medical treatment of any kind. Provided that the affected party is conscious, his will clear, unequivocal and immediate force physicians or individuals who try to heal him or help him.
When as a result of injury or illness to lose consciousness, a priori, to the extent possible, be compelled to comply fully express the desire to circumstances subsumed raised. In these cases, statements will even exist in written form or at all, the doubt shall file subsequent in its content and its accommodation to the situation. Existing legal duty to help (which would not necessarily have been stipulated by law, as it is a moral duty type), fit conflicts of interpretation and further problems for helpers, for doing too much or do nothing.
Once the person concerned, unconscious, is connected and introduced into a specific treatment, even when known to post their prior express desire not to be in any case, it creates a situation where vital raw unconscious conservation on the previous declaration of intent.
3. Alleviate pain: in any case, to an unconscious, irreversible state, assuming with certainty that not regain the full use of his mental faculties to decide on their situation, when the pain and suffering endured are inhuman, who has the care of their upkeep, all warranties and medical supervision, may sedate the patient to levels bearable. If this sedation leading to death must be understood as an inevitable cost of alleviating the pain.
If the patient is conscious, but ceases to be expected soon, anyone with information about your state, you must communicate it, as well as further possibilities. In any case, obey the doctor's performance freely statement issued by him. If unconscious from the beginning, the same information will be transmitted to their families and loved ones, which in any case are in charge of sustainability, even if delegated to a physician. Never, except in cases of total abandonment, medical center or the physician's legitimate decision-maker on the patient.
4. Euthanasia: strictly speaking, an extreme case of the former. Suffering critical and requires sedation to levels incompatible with life. In this case, death is the "best alternative" to a life of terrible suffering. We always talk about irreversible unconscious. It is obvious the conscious, said all that, you can choose what to do at all times.
5. Murder buenista: building temporary or irreversible unconsciousness of the patient, decide to do or not do whatever is necessary to sustain life. In these cases death is the same pain or suffering to stay alive. It buenista raise this murder, euthanasia branded interestingly, also to people with decline in mental ability, disability, senility or severe mental degeneration. Arbitrarily decides that his life is not worth it, is not dignified, not recognized integrity, and thus its elimination is chosen as the best or most good solutions. May be either eugenics or simply selfish.
If it was a great concern
by the state of the young, could have resorted to any of the 4 first choices. The latter ignores the very thing that supposedly justified the claim: the good of the victim.
If you want, Mr. Englaro
lacked the sense of sacrifice demanded that match the challenge of the will of his daughter. May have spent time and effort to "humanize" the law. But this is clearly not sufficient to humanise the act of taking the lives of others. Whether the ideal of both was to avoid the "extreme hardship" Why did not appeal to other ways?
If you can not stand the pain of others, if both the victim and the other supposedly "agree that it is better not to live well
, then it makes sense (at the loss of hope) is not just resort to the law but to express our human weakness
:
scene
film belongs to Johnny took his gun (Johnny Got His Gun, 1971) where a soldier is invalid , unable to communicate, and left to complete the picture of the worst tortures. The almost total dehumanization shown in this work while it is extreme and falls into the absurd, yet serves to make clear which is the logical response to such approaches. Unfortunately
Eluana was killed not by human weakness with the inability to restore its full life. Was killed by the same rigid attitude of the film's official who preferred to opt for "best" according to certain patterns, ignoring the event of a human condition that always persists despite the most terrible suffering.
Tags: Eluana Englaro euthanasia death
