During this period, public attention has been monopolized by the painful case of poor Eluana, now passed away. Let God rest his soul.
I never wanted to express myself and I still do not. I'm just saying that he opposes any form of lawmaking, which by its nature must be general and abstract, because I believe that every case is unique and special, impossible to pigeonhole into a generic case and regulated from which to draw concrete decisions.
As for me, then, is not any law on euthanasia or the determination of how positive to end the life of a person.
other hand I think it is appropriate to create a mechanism, through the establishment of an ethics commission and a court doctor, who can assess in each case what is the reasonable limit beyond which a cure is to be seen as aggressive medical treatment and thus can be suspended, with the result that the sufferer let live as long as nature permits, accepting the limit.
I believe that man is master of life and therefore has no right either to suppress or to impose artificial forms over the limit in respect of the patient, both cases are, in my opinion, forms of pride and abuse of intelligence. Abuse, then that is a misuse.
always return, as a concept fundamental to all human action, whether we speak of ethics whether we speak of freedom, the concept of right reason, HERE EST ET REGULA Mensur. The right reason, which must be sought that requires constant effort and, from time to time, a new effort since the absolute truth belongs to the sphere of the Infinite and Eternal and therefore is not within the reach of human reason, by definition finite, contingent, and limited .
0 comments:
Post a Comment