The law on end-of-life starts off very badly
Photo by Maxim Tolchinskiy on Unsplash
Editorials
The start of the parliamentary process that the Constitutional Court has repeatedly asked to launch is confusing and contradictory. The ideological flags to avoid in order not to exit the gray area
On the same topic:
The start of the parliamentary process of the law on the end of life , which the Constitutional Court has repeatedly asked to pass, is confusing and contradictory. Already from the first drafts and the reactions they have provoked, a tendency towards ideologization can be perceived, which is the exact opposite of what is needed. The majority seems inclined to define as "ethical" the evaluation committee that must give or deny authorization to access moderately assisted suicide, opening up an inevitable and useless terminological controversy on this . The point that is actually essential in the law, the (mandatory?) recourse to palliative care, is treated with a certain superficiality, while it is clear that if pain therapies must not guarantee the survival of the patient, they will end up being the "soft" form of assisted suicide, as is in reality already in real practice. Similar and opposite ideological conditioning characterize the positions, at least those expressed so far, of the opposition. In essence, the radical thesis is followed according to which euthanasia is a “civil right”.
Is this really a position that can hold up in the Democratic Party, especially in sectors that are more closely tied to a Catholic origin or orientation? Since the issue is delicate and complex, it is wrong to refer to borderline cases that have been popularized by radical initiatives; we should carefully examine (and with a little delicacy) the generality of cases and seek solutions that, perhaps maintaining a certain margin of ambiguity, allow people and their doctors to make the most appropriate and in any case painful choices. Avoiding the condemnation to a survival made only of suffering without questioning the principle of the inviolability of life is difficult and requires intelligence, understanding and, if one may say so, humility. Boasting certainties in this field is a symptom of incomprehension, waving ideological flags is even worse. It is to be hoped that after the initial swerve, people will realize that such a delicate issue cannot be cut with an axe.
More on these topics:
ilmanifesto
