EUTHANASIA IN THE SNOW AND FREEDOM 'OF CHOICE The It 'been so long since I wrote this post and I've never done before because they do not like to throw in the polemics ...
I love the reflections in a low voice, peaceful exchanges of views in an atmosphere of reason and in my opinion on this subject, there were too many screaming, shouting and fanaticism from either side, so that parties do not listen to most anything but his own voice and I thought it was useless to talk when no one is listening.
Continuous, but feel the need to speak my mind and so here I am.
I state that, according to my religious beliefs, people are immortal beings. He died on the body but not the essence of the person, his thoughts, his emotions, his feel that they are immortal by nature. So if on one hand the death of a body does not cause the death of an individual, on the other hand, the spiritual pain can not be solved by death, indeed.
I believe strongly in freedom in all its forms.
However, I believe that freedom is given us the knowledge, the real one, not one induced by some authorities. Knowing something is different, I think, have read a book about that. Knowledge is best depends on direct observation and dispassionate. The books help, but only if, then, we see ourselves the phenomenon directly and without filters.
I think the biggest mistake that mankind has done has been based on the opinion of some authority, rather than on scientific grounds. It does not matter if the authority is ecclesiastical, scientific or political, the end result does not change.
That said, here is what I think. A person is free to choose to live or die forever. Anyone can choose suicide when they want.
The problem is that in some circumstances, the person is unable to actually be able to make this choice at first because the conditions of his body allows him. In those circumstances the person who wanted to die would not be able to choose. So I understand those who cry because this freedom is allowed even legally (I say legally because even in practice, then, is still practiced with or without a law to justify the act aa).
It was thought then to the possibility of deciding in advance what you would like to see happen in these cases, that is, a will that would give the opportunity for family members and doctors to end our lives in some cases.
The idea is logical and rational.
The problem lies elsewhere and is upstream.
The problem is some words in the definition of which is non-existent if not altogether wrong.
For example, a person could be considered dispassionately and honestly did not want to go on living if he were in a coma "irreversible" or if his illness was "fatal" and "irreversible." In order to make a decision like this, one should know EXACTLY what it means to be in a coma or that his disease is fatal and irreversible.
And if a person is in coma and in a state of inability to decide who will decide when the condition has been reached? And he who has been deputy to decide, he knows exactly that this condition has been reached?
There are things for which the decision is easy. If I were to write "Kill me if you lose a leg, it would be easy for anyone to say when I lost a leg and the same goes for many other scientific facts and easily observable.
There are many unknowns in other fields. The brain is a totally virgin and unexplored land. I learned watching my father had a brain tumor and meeting dozens of doctors and patients in the same condition in different hospitals that we visited.
There are few proven scientific facts about the brain. Mostly there are theories, hypotheses, experiments in progress. A scientific fact is when there is invariably in the same way, no matter who is watching. In the brain there are few scientific facts and this creates uncertainty in diagnosis and consequently in treatment. You have no idea how many times I've heard the word "try" in the period in which I have dealt with my father.
There are few scientific facts and even cancer in all its manifestations.
So how does one decide when a condition is irreversible, unless the brain has not been completely removed?
And when it comes to children not yet able to understand, comprehend and express themselves, who is going to make that decision? Based on what information?
here will tell a story that I witnessed it myself and that I believe offers more food for thought. A few years ago a friend gave birth to a son with great difficulty during childbirth. These difficulties had caused damage to the child's brain. The baby was born brain-damaged. I think it's hard to imagine what it would feel to be the mother of a child in those conditions. The doctors have consulted many, all agreed that the child, because of breathing problems (due to brain damage) would not survive beyond 6 months. The most optimistic say that even if he survived, the child would live a life of plant and all have advised parents to find a good school that would take care of physiological needs of the child until he was in life because a child in those conditions would be a huge burden for the couple.
Needless to say, both parents were desperate, annihilated, full of guilt and sorrow. Yet they have never succumbed to the temptation to "get rid of the problem" with the justification that an institution could better deal with Guillaume and remained in suspense all the time with the fear of seeing him die at any moment. I met Guillaume who was two years old, an age when children roam around the house, are already talking with a rich vocabulary and touch everything that they can achieve. Guillaume did not speak. Not only did not walk but could not even sit down because her spine did not take it. Legs and arms were completely devoid of life. Only the eyes were always open and blacks realize that not only was alive but followed everything that was happening around him.
Encouraged by the fact that the child had survived up to that point, parents have never stopped looking for a solution to help their child. And it was around the age of two years that they ran into a group of physicians in Philadelphia who were working on a theory, not at all known and approved by the medicine at all Journal, whereby, although parts of the brain can be damaged by destroying circuits that allow some vital functions, you can restore the functions, creating alternative circuits in the brain, through repetition of the function in a passive way. That is, if you do the movement of the legs of the child a sufficient number of times in a passive way, the brain will build an alternative circuit that will allow the child to perform the function independently.
This pair of parents has gone to Philadelphia, met with doctors, met hundreds of children from around the world under conditions of Guillaume who had clear improvement in their conditions. Obviously, the therapy consisted of eight hours of work on the child in order to get results. So the mother left her job and took care of the child full time. Within a year the child could stand up and moved his arms, not only spoke, but since the program also included various kinds of mental stress, the child spoke three languages \u200b\u200bfluently and knew so much about the history of his country adults leave you speechless. Guillaume was laughing and joking about his condition with un'autoironia I've seen rarely in adults. He had the intelligence of a genius and I am sure it will be a blessing to the world one day.
Of course, none of what they did the parents to follow this treatment for the child has been subjected to any kind of assistance because the theory was not recognized or sanctified by the medical of the country.
telling this story because I think that freedom of choice is sacrosanct, but even more fundamental than the freedom of choice is the right to be informed in clear and explicit about what you know and what you do not know and be able to choose do prefer a treatment that, in addition to the stamps affixed by the authorities.
One should have the choice to live or die. But it needs to know.
