Tonight I'm a bit upset for a very important fact that has occurred today in our classrooms MPs: I am referring to the approval of DDL on living wills Senate today approved with 150 yes, 123 no and three abstentions. I'm not a lawyer, and it is true that this is a bill, but a couple of key things about this sensitive issue are quite clear to me: If this bill were to become law, would mean that the will of the patient, not to be subjected against their will, medical treatment and health services, if this patient have a stronger voice to express it, it would be practically nothing. This is because, again, there was the cunning against citizens. Beppe Grillo would say, here's that word (in this case but, rather, an excerpt of words) have changed the whole concept. You probably know that already there had been several proposals in Italy come from multiple political parties, to fill the legislative vacuum on the issue living will, on the subject of end of life, and perseverance teraupeutico .
But among the many, one thing must be clear and Cross: If you had to legislate on these issues, and establish by law that the will of the patient (now called the "Dat - Statement by early treatment") had to be mandatory for doctors and health care, that's rather a surprise (but not much), this bill has been carved out this word: in fact, in the first paragraph of Article 4, which, for a change in committee wanted by the majority, stated Statements that early treatment 'are not mandatory, but are binding " was deleted the second part of the statement, implying that the patient has previously received, in full possession of his mental faculties, the so-called informed consent , however, the medical profession to decide, also has the right to act in the opposite direction, if deems appropriate: hence, the patient's wishes are not met.
Recitation so, in fact, Article 4 of the bill:
ART. 4 - (shape and duration of the declaration in advance of treatment).
1. The advance directives are not mandatory treatment . are written in a written document having a specific date and signature del soggetto interessato maggiorenne, in piena capacita' di intendere e di volere dopo una compiuta e puntuale informazione medico clinica, e sono raccolte esclusivamente dal medico di medicina generale che contestualmente le sottoscrive.
(la fonte è sempre questa ). Qui un articolo che spiega tutto bene (certamente meglio di me che non sono una giornalista ^^). Mentre l'altro nodo della questione, che era già stato dibattuto e deciso nella giornata di mercoledì, era quella riguardante idratazione e alimentazione artificiale , che da oggi non si potranno più considerare accanimento terapeutico, bensì un trattamento umano obbligatorio, poiché (sempre citing the DDL) are considered are "forms of life support and physiologically designed to alleviate the suffering until the end of life." and therefore, they "can not be the subject of advance directives for treatment."
you understand, then, the deception? You, State, before you make me believe that you care about my opinion, respecting my wishes on my life and my Pellacchia, giving me the illusion that I need to write that I do not want to be hydrated and fed artificially in the case I find myself in situations like that of irreversible clinical Eluana , such as the persistent vegetative state, but then admit that doctors can do as they please, and especially the nasogastric tube requires me to keep me alive (or non-life, according to myself). So, what really matters to the will of a malt in Italy? And as our country is secular? As time passes, the more I am convinced that the answers to both questions is "very little". In my opinion, today Eluana is dead for the third time, and I have lost hope of having a serious law and democratic about these important issues.
0 comments:
Post a Comment