We are one of those countries where there is still a paternalistic attitude and unconstitutional on freedom of self-determination and where it still continues to point the finger with anger and guilt in those who seek to rely on simple disagreement with a treatment.
Italy is in line to protect some civil rights on end of life: in Germany is already a living will stato riconosciuto come vincolante dalla Corte Suprema dal 2003 , in Spagna dal 2002 , in Francia dal 2005 ,nel Regno Unito dal 2007 , negli USA ( in california dal 1976 ) a livello federale dal 1991.
In italia facciamo... pena o forse facciamo.... ridere, perché dopo continui tentennamenti e pietose confusioni e ingerenze di chiesa e politica sui diritti civili, si arriva a partorire un ddl che sulla carta tuona alla tutela dei cittadini, alla libertà di scelta del paziente e poi nei fatti blocca e vincola la libertà di autodeterminarsi rendendo non contrattabili e oggetto di testamento pratiche mediche ridicolmente mascherate dalla semantica sotto il nome di sostegno vitale.
So you got all this matter is hot and has put in the hands of a pool of individuals not well-defined policy which, not being lawyers, let alone trials, but knead a lot in the matter, making the whole herb a beam, mixing in a single pot permanent vegetative state, brain death, euthanasia, terminal illness and then having the bad taste to create a universal solution that is applicable to all these different situations and different .... series of "so bad it can not do."
Perhaps it would be to stop talking about artificial nutrition and hydration as good-natured bread and water, and ' inappropriate and misleading, are treatments for all purposes. A bit risky when you hear politicians, pundits, journalists and screaming into a fiery mass media medieval practices in reducing these measures are very similar to the physiological functions of the safety drinking and eating ... I know no one has breakfast at the bar or drink a cappuccino with a tube through the nose reaches the stomach.
yet but according to some is natural, or rather can not do that well in advance and alleviate suffering of all kinds, but it is not life-sustaining treatment, so it is good served up by force and not make it liable to rejection .
Really the limits of logic: a doctor can not force the forced feeding a patient who consciously refuse food, as well as serving the individual's consent to put a feeding tube, but then you no longer need to know how he is to remove ... . somewhat 'contradictory. The Constitution (artcolo 32) guarantees and recognizes the validity of the will expressed dall'ammalato Article 9 of the Oviedo Convention also guarantees the validity, in case of unconsciousness, indicating that they comply with the previously expressed wishes of the patient but .... in the end we do not know everything.
Any treatment must be held la propria efficacia in itinere ,confrontandosi col decorso clinico del paziente e non a priori, perché non esistono trattamenti benefici a priori, ma solo quelli più opportuni a quel determinato caso clinico tanto è variabile la gravità e la varietà interindividuale delle condizioni in cui può versare un corpo malato .
Ecco perché trovo davvero incostituzionale nonché un azzardo clinico e professionale che chi sta in parlamento arrivi a stigmatizzare un trattamento come “irrinunciabile” a prescindere dalla situazione clinica reale che poi si presenta e alla quale va applicato.
Lo stesso trattamento che fino a pochi giorni prima poteva essere adeguato ,può nel tempo diventare inappropriato a causa dell’umano mutare e del peggiorar delle condizioni cliniche, trasformando la “cura” in “eccesso di cura” e la nutrizione e idratazione artificiale in accanimento. Ecco perché trovo assurdo non rendere contrattabili a priori queste pratiche mediche .
0 comments:
Post a Comment