was this afternoon at home, ordering some books, when I found one that had forgotten I had: " Letters from Hell", written by Ramon Sampedro during the 30 years he was bedridden, unable to move beyond the head. I guess we all know the story, especially since years Amenábar masterfully led his story to film, starring Javier Bardem and Belén Rueda.
Sampedro says: " If you are denied the right to abandon the senseless pain, also prohibits the right to be freer, more noble, more just ... "
In Spain, the debate on euthanasia was introduced following the video in which Ramon Sampedro drank a liquid that ended his mortal life, aided by his girlfriend. The debate took a dye duel between the religious and the secular. There were two views (both respectable, of course) totally at odds, in which morality and ethics played key roles. The PSOE promised in 2004 to create a commission in the Parliament to consider the possibility of legalizing it, but it is a sensitive topic that nobody wants to step forward.
I've said on other occasions: the problems of society would turn out in much if we were affected side in any matter (to avoid early demagogues, exclude murderers, terrorists, rapists and other tales)
defend euthanasia when it is done in full mental conditions, as was the case of Ramon Sampedro. The decision to live or die can only belong to the individual, anyone else. Those who made the law prohibiting such an act can not be claimed that abandoning the first, we must fight, that there is always hope ... manual and other topics. Tell this to Sampedro guess that would make funny because the very ones who were going to visit him and gave him strength to go (where?) At the end they would (walk) to their homes, to continue with their lives, while he did not would be able to go anywhere. If I were the legislature would not have the decency to appear on your house, tell the goodness of life, say you can not die and that it is best to continue to suffer, but yes, you do not lose hope, that the same in 100 years there is a cure for his disease.
When you have grown this debate in a conversation, ask the same question: - "If you end up like him, you endure 30 years so? "- who say yes, you may not know what they're talking about. I understand that some people accept their new life, they are heroes to admire, but I think that 90% admit they do not endure. Then Why not amend the legislation and instead of making a Death with Dignity Act and palliative care, which is also very well go a step further and let each person (I insist that perfect mental conditions) to decide whether it is best to live or die? who argue that no one better than the hit you know, is that he understands nothing.
do not think the religious issue has to enter the debate. To me, it's an issue that life should not be an obligation, and it a privilege and a right.
0 comments:
Post a Comment