The satirical weekly "Heart" was once under the heading "be ashamed for them," submitted as a "service utilities for those who can not be ashamed of himself. "
Perhaps today we should remember that his phonebook Michele Serra, the founder of "Heart." Asking if you do not think I deserve that after the course was published yesterday on the Republic.
I think that human beings, albeit separated by occasional differences of opinion, can and should meet the universal compassion for the pain that marks our tragic human condition. I think Serra should seriously consider.
Unfortunately yesterday, he is one of the authors of "Come away with me," he wound up with a finger raised to the request of many people with severe illness, they strive to live and to live in better conditions, to be able to tell in that program as well as, in the same program, was told the story of Welby and Englaro.
For a week these patients are asking every day from the first page of "Future", complain that they feel lonely, silent, and that they want to live. But apparently Serra, Saviano, Fazio and his companions, have decreed that they have no right to speak in "their" television.
Certainly compassion for the suffering of other human beings, visited by terrible diseases, there is a duty of law. But when it comes to public television is also a collective problem.
Italics Serra seemed to me very unhappy when some ill defined as those who "want to stay alive indefinitely." With a streak of (hopefully unintentional) irony.
Serra arrived to claim that those who assist them have an "objective advantage" (sic), which would be to "operate without hindrance and without any legal ethical hostility."
I hope that those who write such things should never experience directly on their skin or that of his loved ones, this wonderful "advantage" referred fabled.
hope you do not know inhuman torment never see a young son in a coma and did not know if you wake up and under what conditions.
If Serra would step outside his living room ideological petty bourgeois, where the words are as hot as my ass to him, and if he was going to listen to those who live in hospitals that fierce pain, we learn that the tragedy - even unbearable - our children crucifixes (SLA or coma or other horrors) have to add every family the humiliation and suffering of being almost alone, lost in hell, without help, without means, without support (so often that anyone - mom or dad - is even forced to leave work).
And it is a mockery to say that they have no legal or ethical barriers.
On his comfortable hammock, Serra seems to disregard the cry for help that goes by many families who literally passed out and come apart in order to help their children plunged into darkness.
They have no right to tell their brave struggle for life to "Come away with me." Indeed.
Serra goes so far as to define the Catholics, who want their voice to be silenced patients and their families, as "strong" that sought to coerce the weak, because they allow "freedom of protest from a recognized" for ask to speak to everyone.
But what does it mean? Serra wrote: "from a freedom." But how high and what freedom is shed words? And 'he, Serra, who pontificates "top" of his freedom of opinion, healthy (good for him) and television writer.
Our children live in the abyss instead of the disease. Where not even have the freedom to move a hand or saying a word or eating.
Serra adds another expression: "from a freedom recognized." What "freedom accorded" would have crucified a boy and his parents? Perhaps alludes to the freedom to live? We
perhaps consider a gracious concession of the state or lorsignori thinkers that a sick daughter alive?
I do not think. This freedom is not a concession of any state.
The problem is rather that freedom represented by the large number of these patients do not have. Practically have no freedom, and - now - is also denied them the freedom to shout at their television appeal for help.
is not serious or just change the cards on the table. These patients, along with Catholics - to say Serra - protest "from a freedom accorded the same freedom against those who did not. Strong protest weak: it is not very athletic. "
E 'a reversal of the outrageous truth. Because none of the patients who every day put on the front page Avvenire protested "against" or Englaro Welby.
None of them claimed to be told to stop again on tv or the history of Welby Englaro. Simply ask to tell them well.
The "strong" if anything is Serra, and Fazio Saviano that TV and newspapers - to them - they do not theorize that have the right to speak in their program (obviously giving for granted that Rai is their thing and not a public television, paid all the money).
This logic of the strong against the weak bend just in front of other strong, as the Interior Minister who managed to get a reply, because it is a powerful minister. But nothing seems to be due to the weak.
Instead, all we have - or should have - the duty of compassion. And solidarity. Words that may not have (more) citizenship on the left.
Antonio Socci
"free" 24 November 2010
0 comments:
Post a Comment