I'm sorry that this post has been advanced by the death of the director Monicelli. I'm sorry for the choice that led him to make a dramatic gesture, perhaps to avoid further unnecessary and hypocritical arguments for a case to Englaro or Welby, who would have made much hungry greedy mouths of the media (unfortunately, those of the politicians is impossible to silence .. in fact the act of Monicelli aroused controversy equally, even in Parliament). I'm sorry because most of it makes me think that I bring bad luck: every time I start to think of something to write on the blog someone ahead and end up publishing something that will fall into the cauldron of "the-things-because-these-l'argomento- is-hot ". Not so. What I write is the result of a long reflection that hardly rectify. I leave aside the personal aspect, or that of my choice, why not seek consensus, not want you to comply with a decision that is not yours, why not are my business and why I want to make a call to an opinion released by any indoctrination.
Good. If anyone still has any doubts, I'm here to write about the decision (prior) to choose what to do with your life when you will be able to express or formulate a thought. Euthanasia, living wills: there are differences, but I want to talk about the substance.
This choice should be made freely by each, should be given the opportunity to decide without pressure of any kind. They should leave white paper: so the people who have certain religious beliefs or personal they may decide to treat themselves while those thought to be suffering useless (for himself and his family) may choose to leave when she will have a minimum of dignity and will not be reduced to a squalid plant.
How to choose a car: in short, who can judge or hinder your decision to buy a nice SUV cumbersome than a compact car? Why not be the same with much more important and very personal decisions? Why should constrain the choices of some of those others?
I think I understand why. The explanation is that there is a huge need (now more than ever) to standardize people. Pain and disease create business: if a sick person remains alive until the end of his life (which is when the end of his life as it is attached to a machine?) will be good. Yes! It is not evil, it's business. E 'money. It will be good for multinational pharmaceutical companies, who-along with many others-have great influence over political, economic and doctors who care for us, it will be good for the basket of offerings in church, private clinics that are managed from society (and what is the purpose of a company?), and perhaps the most dramatic scenario, will enrich the pockets of some political director.
E 'must all stand up because this choice is left to each one, which is really staff, without fear of opinions (also true!) and obstacles.
It 's a subject that should be treated constantly until all is left to decide for their lives. Should not it fall into oblivion until the next bomb because the media are such patients every day and, unfortunately, have the misfortune not to be called Moroni, Englaro, clouds, or Welby Schiavo.
Jade Iovino
0 comments:
Post a Comment