Look for Bioethics - Section of Verona
PRESS RELEASE
TESTAMENT TESTAMENT IDEOLOGICAL OR BIOLOGICAL?
Verona, April 2, 2009
On March 26 the Senate approved the bill on living wills Calabro. The law has been reinforced by the majority, who did not accept any amendment proposed by the opposition, emptied of any meaning the work of Parliament. The text sent now to the House of Representatives has even more stringent standards than those previously contestate.Una law unconstitutional and undemocratic.
Calabrò The law is undemocratic because it violates the freedom of citizens. This provides that artificial nutrition and hydration (tube naso-gastric) are always mandatory for all patients, conscious and unconscious. Despite the international and Italian scientific community considers the naso-gastric medical treatment, a medical act, so it is not for this law, which generally means as a form of life support, and as such the doctor can not deny no. In addition, the DDL provides that can not be interrupted treatment already undertaken, if this may sometimes cause death. Approved by the DDL are missing too many references to the figure of the Trustee, in its reduced role tended to enforce the will of the patient.
This law does not protect freedom of treatment, but requires health, forced to live indefinitely, even without any hope of recovery.
E 'clear to many lawyers as it is a law unconstitutional, since it contrasts with the art. 13, which guarantees inviolability of personal freedom, and art. 32, which ensures informed consent (also provided by art. 34 of the Code of Medical Ethics), namely the protection of the right to consent and to refuse surgery, drugs, etc.., Even lifesaving, those without which death can occur.
a law against living wills
This law is anti-historical because it takes us away once again from Europe, EU and international biolaw which enshrines the right to self-determination of the patient as a priority over the duty of the physician to cure him. In the countries of the laws on living wills are a long time (Belgium, Holland, France, Spain, Germany, England), and in all, reaffirming the right of patients to consent or refuse treatment. This is the reason that
led some of us to demand a law on wills biological in Italy: to avoid having
more appeal to supranational law and to give, once and for all, the legal value will
early treatment, as an act of responsibility. Who would have imagined that the outcome instead
would have been exactly the opposite? Calabro Law leaves no room for doubt: the living will is not binding on the doctor who is treating the patient. Your doctor will decide whether to take this into account and to the best knowledge and belief, you can disregard them (medical paternalism).
Calabro Law is not a law on living wills, and anti-law: an ideological manifesto which aims to ensure that Italians do not fill out his declaration early treatment because both could be useless.
So what's the stress in the text of the law the recognition of informed consent, then decide if the doctor and the patient? What is the point writing that recognizes and guarantees the
dignity of the person in priority to the interest of society and applications of
technology and science, then if the introduction of the oral or naso-gastric surgical
and as a result of drugs, proteins, electrolytes, etc.., They can not refuse? Not to mention that for some cancer patients in terminal state, hydration leads to an increase of suffering and may even hasten death. But who wrote and voted for this DDL that is not affected. Nourish and hydrate the time, even when the body naturally rejects it. In patients unable to absorb naturally. Furthermore, the goal is not to make a law that helps people.
We are witnessing the transformation of the democratic state in a state of ethics, which requires for
law what is good and what is bad for our souls and our bodies. The Italian state may (will) seize the patients to keep them artificially alive to the bitter end, through the forced introduction of the nasogastric tube and the retention of unwanted treatment and care against their will.
Life unavailable or available?
My life is down to me, order today to the Italian, when I want
nature take its course and lead me to death (the result, inter alia, to which no living being
can escape), but it seems very well available from politics, I to retain power in
hospital against my will, even if expressed publicly and validated by a notary. Of course, those who wish to be kept alive artificially must be protected and safeguarded. No one wants to "switch off" to anyone. But, equally, who, in keeping with his personal beliefs, not interested, too, should be protected and safeguarded in a democratic state.
In our country more and more illiberal, the hope is that old and new politicians to notice that bioethics is not a subject like any other. It touches the depths of us, the way we feel and see life, the world, and death. The hope is that they understand that no politician can be substituted for another's consciousness, if it is really democratic and secular state model in which we live.
The principle of secularism is the only guarantee that the dialogue between the various ethical and the necessary separation between morality and law. The defense of an ethical pluralism and bioethical is a mirror of good democracy, where it preserves the freedom of thought and expression, it stimulates the confrontation, we seek common principles on which to base political action, become sensitized citizens to be active participation in the social arena, they defend the fundamental human rights in the knowledge that nobody in the castle of life, has keys that open the door of truth.
Look for Bioethics - Section of Verona
Coordinators
Sara Patuzzo
Alberto Turkish
0 comments:
Post a Comment