Michele Aramini bioethicist
Paolo Flores d'Arcais in a recent online argument in defense of the choice of the pair-Saviano Fazio not to grant the representatives of relatives of patients with major disabilities a place to say their reasons. The argument used to defend the choice of Fazio is as follows: they are two different rights. Mina Welby Beppino Englaro and would defend the right to freedom of choice against the disease. Family members of patients claiming a right to care that nobody denies, in principle, and that needs to be supported with concrete assistance. Of this second law was the transmission, so it was out of place the participation of these people to the debate on the right to freedom of choice.
AThis argument Flores d'Arcais can replicate the first right of patients to a true cure is a fact so important that a minimum of sensitivity could give them worthy of media representation, since there was an urgent request. Evidently the pair of conductors considered insignificant protect this right. Or perhaps considered counterproductive to their own ends. So Fazio, Saviano and their authors have used their media power as an expression of a faction
PCHE is already known for its commitment to pro-euthanasia. ver important is to show how the argument referred to is flawed in principle. There is a relationship between two rights: to die on its decision and that of the treatment? Obviously it. Here is where the link is not seen. The principle of self-determination and murderess not appear immediately, it needs an ally concept called 'life without value'. Only if a person is declared in terms of 'life without value' can be done to eliminate it, blanketing the gesture of nobility, and of civilization than any other rhetoric as possible. This is because the referee, with the result of violence and death that follows, wants to appear a factor of progress and true civilization. To appearances does not give anyone. The concept of life without value has an objective and one subjective. Subjectively, every day we can think of no worth nothing, but then it passes. From the objective point of view most of the people who are in great condition disabilities can be classified as worthless lives.
's the point. All my friends who live lovingly assisted by family members are declared 'objects' and marginalized. Their families are weakened in claiming the right to assistance and someone has the courage to call them 'Taliban of life'. The time to lay David Lamb tells us that there is a distinct possibility that, in a society which is considered lawful killing upon request, the dying and disabled from falling into a great situation where they are forced to express "their desire to die," as the fulfillment of a last wish of good manners towards healthy living.
The connection between free choice and worthless life is not a gimmick dialectic: it is an indisputable fact. In fact, even the most convinced supporter of the principle of autonomy could not ask for death for a healthy person. To ask for the death it must be said that it has lost its value by reducing the rank of the person concerned. Do not see this link between the right to freedom of choice and the right to treatment in the best case is due to blindness ideological. Consider then freedom without limits means not even have understood the principle of autonomy that, in the original thought of the Enlightenment, is not as absolute but as a source of good ties between the men, who are always ends and never means.
Source: http://www.avvenire.it/
0 comments:
Post a Comment