Italian Parliament Debates Eluana Englaro Bill
As Eluana Englar is being dehydrated to death, the Italian Parliament is debating a proposed law that would prohibit causing cognitively disabled people to die in this manner. From the story:
Italian senators raced Monday to discuss a bill designed to keep a woman in vegetative state from having her feeding tube disconnected, the latest twist in a right-to-die case that has consumed Italy. The bill aimed at keeping Eluana Englaro alive is expected to win quick approval. It is supported by Premier Silvio Berlusconi, whose conservative forces have solid majority in Parliament...Her father testified she had not wanted to be maintained in such a condition. Even so, I wonder if she specifically mentioned being dehydrated to death, and if she did, whether she knew what that really entails, as I posted about here. It seems to me that it is wrong to hold people to what may have been casual statements or oral assertions about their desires that were made without all of the details. After all, shouldn't truly informed consent on such a vital matter be the minimum standard?
In line with the high court ruling, medical workers on Friday began gradually suspending food and water for Englaro. Citing privacy rules, they have not given updates on the procedure. But Italy's center-right government, backed by the Vatican, has been pressing to keep her alive, racing against time to pass legislation prohibiting food and water from being suspended for patients who depend on them.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:15 AM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
I see it's here we go again with "final" court orders. The implication the professor mentioned wishes to give is that it is impossible for her to be saved by this law even if it is passed in time because of "previous court orders." But my impression had been that the earlier court ruling was that her father _could_ dehydrate her to death, not that this is in any way _mandated_ by Italian law. But these guys always want any such court decision that prompts legislative action to be irrevocable. "The court has spoken, and its wishes must be carried out." And they will say so even when their legal grounds are exceedingly shaky. If the Italian court's ruling was based on then-existing law--namely, that under the law as then worded her death by dehydration was permissible--then obviously a change in law changes the situation while she remains alive. So I have grave doubts about the accuracy of this professor's statement.
As I recall, didn't Italy outlaw this procedure a few years ago on the basis of human equality, or was that AS?
I agree with the life support vs. dehydration thing. I have already told my family that I do not wish to be starved and dehydrated to death in the case of a brain injury. I think that they will honor my wishes but I think that they think they are more borne out of ideology than hard facts. I don't think that they really understand the circumstances of the cases on which they base their desire not to have a feeding tube.
It's scary because if I hadn't known about these situations via alternative media and networking sites, I would have maintained my original position that in the case of brain death, I wouldn't want life support. But, that was back when I thought life support was understood as machinery that was literally working the body's basic functions while it was going through the natural process of shutting down. I would NEVER have wanted to be deprived of food and water, even via feeding tube, and would have been totally unaware that such measures are now viewed as life support. I think that a lot of people are in the same boat-thinking that life support means one thing when it actually means another.
I don't care what anyone said, or anyone says they said, in any form. It's now that counts and one doesn't know about now at the point of the then when one is supposed to have said it. Life is now and life counts now. No one's own word should be used, or alleged, in order to end one's life. Any more than anyone else's should. Even if someone thinks they know what they want beforehand, they can't know; it hasn't happened yet. If they still want it later, their wishes do not count as much as those who might have made the mistake but then realize that they want to live when they are actually in the situation. For anyone even to entertain the whole idea, let alone broach it, le alone "quote" on the matter, is absolutely obscene.
And yes that goes for "elder law" attorneys and their "living will" stuff, and for a whole lot of other people. I don't care about those who really don't want to live; to hell with them. They aren't worth the risk to those who DO, and sometimes get rooked into signing these things, or even have stupidly said what they shouldn't have when they didn't even know what they were talking about.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home