abruptly : I support the living will. I have a sense of humanity and solidarity. I believe that a normal human being, in full possession of his mental faculties and in conditions of peace of mind, leave a written will, promptly filed with the civil authorities, what others, family members or friends, should make him and for him, assuming that joint or lying under or suffering irreversible brain death, he is no longer able to decide for himself.
First, deal with religion. The Church is right to make the church would be wrong if he did something else. Does well, then, to be against abortion, against all forms of forced procreation, against gay marriage, against all unnatural behavior, cessation of all forms of life that is not the one intended by nature, which she identifies in the Lord God .
When the Church was also the judiciary and exercised directly or through political power, that the same condition, the sinners punished as criminals. More or less as they do today Islam and any other theocratic state. Today the Church has only the power to say. Who wants to listen, listen, and if not what he wants to go ahead. If the will with God!
Preserve, however, a remarkable ability to influence the choices of political power in its various forms. Not only in Italy. We think the United States of America, where a presidential candidate wins or loses depending on its relationship with the values \u200b\u200bof the Church. But in no country in the world you put a politician in the government deliberately against religion. If he does, does not last.
In Italy we are not always to the equalization of sin with crime. The State does not punish those who do not believe in God, who fornicates, who want the woman or the other stuff. Punishes those who steal, those who kill, those who make false statements. But there are many cases where the distinction between sin and crime is not so clear. In these cases it was wrong to follow the Church's position, because there are different tasks.
The human being in its essence of life respond to impulses and needs that may not matter much. No law, the State or the Church, can I determine when to eat, when I sleep, when I wash myself when I have to digest and so on. Needs are, these, which depend in part on the willingness and physiology. The people have natural rights that the State should ensure as positive rights.
A natural law may be death. The individual may feel the need to die, when it is in the clutches of pain or when you are ill and for him, reduced to pure vegetative state, there is no possibility to overcome the phase of the evil that is leading inevitably to death .
The man instinctively rejects the pain, does everything possible to alleviate it, stand it when they know that there is an after. Pain is an affront to life, as part thereof. When the condition becomes no possibility to get out, put an end to pain is the most natural of all instincts. When, even without pain, it is dead bodies of reason and will, is more than just an end to the suffering of their own and their families.
Jacopone begged: " O, Lord, please, manname the unhealthy" because he wanted to suffer in order to atone for his sins. He begged a life of suffering, long, long, long, to suffer more and worse. Jacopone would never have been for euthanasia, or for sweet death to avoid unnecessary suffering. Not only because he believed that you do not suffer unnecessarily, but because he had to live and suffer the same thing, because he had to be suffering condition of life. If you really had to die, then he wanted to be eaten by a dog defecated on the weeds.
Today I do not know who might think of it as Jacopone. Surely there are. Above all, there are those who believe that you do not live in vain, and neither will they suffer needlessly. They are believers, not necessarily mystical. Before which those who have no hat to provide scappellarsi to have one, because in front of people like the greatest reverence is still low.
But for most, not necessarily materialists and unbelievers, the situation is different, and the state should provide to recognize their needs. E 'need a law that makes it optional at least the right to make a living will, which dictate its will regarding the end of his life. Of course, it is not just a matter of suffering or pain, there are not only biological, moral and religious, there are important implications civilians. The death and bring to a living will, is something that is decided and therefore can be driven by other interests, such as capital or otherwise, depending on the role and importance that the person in question. So the law should be well conceived and elaborate, able to predict any and every situation.
Such a law would meet the criteria, as I said at the opening of humanity and solidarity. Of humanity, because it avoids human suffering. Solidarity because you can not force people to see suffer and suffer in turn. When life for a human being that is not in the sense that in order to live has many people who need care, sophisticated machines that make breathing and heart beat him while he is conscious or unconscious, can not to decide and end it all, why continue? What right have I to influence the lives of my family and force them to stay home in a body, that it is only to be humanly buried?
The living will is an important act of piety civil action for an estimate of self-respect, love for others.
[]
0 comments:
Post a Comment