Sometimes, after a serious accident, a man is reduced to the state vegetable. We can no longer talk, move or communicate in waiting for death. Why can not we express our willingness today to when we are in such a case and give directions on what to do? Why are we forced to obey (even in those terms) to a "law" of the Church that prevents us from living and stop the suffering? They say that after death there is a life of happiness, then why these people you can not give away?
Cara Maria Teresa Maria Teresa, first, it
to clarify what a vegetative state. This is a clinical condition resulting in coma or in the terminal phase of life, may precede.
In summary, the internationally accepted definition of the vegetative state indicates a clinical condition in which the patient is awake (ie, has his eyes open, while in the coma, the eyes are always closed), but is not aware (not self-conscious and self-respect to the environment: in practice, does not communicate and does not respond to its surroundings).
Wikipedia gives a substantially correct definition: "[...] a patient in a vegetative state have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment around him, but retains the non-cognitive and sleep-wake cycle, may have spontaneous movements and opens his eyes when stimulated, but not speak or obey commands. Patients in a vegetative state may appear somewhat normal: From time to time may grimace, laugh or cry. " All this without emotional valence and willful. A simple and pure automatic reflex.
remember that, as regards the Catholic Church, the doctrine on euthanasia, is summarized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church dedicated to the fifth commandment: 2277
whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia is to put an end to the life of the handicapped, ammalate o prossime alla morte. Essa è moralmente inaccettabile.
Così un'azione oppure un'omissione che, da sé o intenzionalmente, provoca la morte allo scopo di porre fine al dolore, costituisce un'uccisione gravemente contraria alla dignità della persona umana e al rispetto del Dio vivente, suo Creatore. L'errore di giudizio, nel quale si può essere incorsi in buona fede, non muta la natura di quest'atto omicida, sempre da condannare e da escludere.
2278 L'interruzione di procedure mediche onerose, pericolose, straordinarie o sproporzionate rispetto ai risultati attesi può essere legittima. In tal caso si ha la rinuncia all'«accanimento terapeutico». Non si vuole così procurare la morte: si accetta inability to impede it. Decisions must be taken by the patient if he is competent and able or, otherwise, by those legally entitled to, respecting the reasonable will and legitimate interests of the patient.
2279 Even if death is considered imminent, that of ordinary care owed to a sick person can not be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the suffering of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally worthy of human dignity if death is not willed either as an end or as a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care constitute a privileged of disinterested charity. In this capacity should be encouraged.
Instead, as a curiosity, note that the Dalai Lama, visiting Rome and interviewed in the case of concomitant Eluana, in a vegetative state for 17 years, has reiterated his belief on the topic:
euthanasia "should avoid it, but in special cases could make exceptions. " On Eluana: "If indeed there is no chance of recovery, to maintain that status is very expensive and families are suffering, then you could act. In general, even if a person does not walk anymore, but his body and his brain are still present, then it is better to keep a person alive, but you can do exceptions ".
care should be stopped if there is" a chance to regain consciousness and mental functions. "In Buddhism," in cases of incurable disease is a practice that allows the abandonment of consciousness from the body "; in other cases "we talk about suicide."
Here, in the opinion of Umberto Veronesi (http://www.cdbchieri.it/rassegna_stampa_2009/englaro.htm):
"The right to dispose of his life there . E 'on personal liberty enshrined in Article 13 and Article 32 of the Constitution, which states that nobody can be forced to a specific medical treatment and also Article 35 of the Code of Medical Ethics che conferma che non è consentito alcun trattamento medico contro la volontà della persona.". Sappia quindi la gente che c´è un punto fermo : nessuno può violare questo diritto e c´è chi si impegna a farlo rispettare sempre e comunque nella sua sostanza. Eluana oggi non è quella delle foto. E´ una donna di quasi quarant´anni anni, senza sorriso, senza espressione negli occhi, senza vita di relazione, senza coscienza, senza controllo di un corpo, che è ormai un involucro in disfacimento. La sua vita meravigliosa si è spenta per sempre 17 anni fa.
Fatte queste premesse, veniamo al dibattito politico in Italia.
L'argomento, "eticamente sensibile", è oggetto di posizioni differenti between a secular currents of thought, including discussions of radical Christian-based euthanasia and a strong defense of life. With regard to euthanasia
the National Bioethics Committee has expressed in December 2003 with a document, 19 pages, including an analysis of issues related to and ending with a series of recommendations, compliance with which ensures the legality of advance directives . The document states that an advance directive may not contain information "in contradiction with the positive law, the rules of medical practice, medical ethics (...) can not be forced to do anything that goes against his science and his consciousness 'and that' the right that is willing to admit the patient to direct the treatments that could be submitted, where now incapable of discernment, not a right to euthanasia, or an individual right to die that the patient can rely on in the relationship with doctor ( ...) but only the right to require doctors to suspension or non-activation of therapeutic practices even in the most extreme and tragic life support practices that the patient would have the full moral and legal right to refuse, if capable "
The document of the National Bioethics Committee also states that physicians should not only consider advance directives written on a sheet signed by the person, but also to document writing in the medical record his actions in relation to advance directives, whether they are implemented or rejected.
From time to time some cases of death or rejection of the term medical treatment (such as those of Luke and Coscioni Eluana) bring to the attention of public policy and the need to legislate on the subject clearly
Pending a law regulating the matter is in place in many Italian towns, the collection of advance treatment of citizens residing in the territory concerned. For the promoters of these initiatives and circumvent the legislation does not anticipate any legislative action, but action is needed because, in case of need, not necessary to reconstruct, in retrospect, the will of the person, as has happened in the case of Eluana.
conclude by referring to the blog post 'TRUTH' A COMPARISON:
http://nuoveteorie.blogspot.com/2009/04/vita-vegetativa-e-vita-umana-quando.html
's life It began when a human person, become the fetus, the brain is able to communicate with other human brains, whether or unconscious. After the first notice, its DNA, unchanged from conception, started editing VISA you change your brain synapses and begin to make STORAGE AND EXPERIENCE interact with the environment.
animal life (including human-type) differs from the PLANT IN RELATION TO LEARNING EXPERIENCE (the plants do not learn from each experience the same way as animals).
LIFE AND ANIMALS AND 'CHANGE INCESSANT synapses in brain and DNA (AND NOT CHANGED' DNA which remains even in an organism waiting for a transplant).
Here we are in the field of neuroscience: Eric Kandel took his Nobel in 2000 for having demonstrated, studies on the sea slug Aplysia and mice, that every new experience in learning made by a person or animal (or human) with a brain with neurons and synapses, is a network change and neuronal SINAPTICA (with new synapses, or even with simple thickening of some of the existing synapses). These changes in synaptic functions for transcription of DNA, there is also a change in the DNA, most of which are also passed on to descendants (see: http://www.psicoanalisi.it/psicoanalisi/neuroscienze/articoli/neuro4.htm) .
Obviously, there are areas of DNA that affect the variability of Mofidi the shape and functions; other changes, however, affect the very human aspect (character, phobias, intuition, complexes, archetypes, etc.).. CHANGE FOR THIS incessantly DNA (say MENTAL) is equivalent to experience and live a life COMPARABLE TO A SPIRITUAL LIFE
A dear Greeting
Alessandra
0 comments:
Post a Comment