Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook

Euthanasia and the scandal of death

Religion and science combine paradoxically in the expectation of eternal life

- 64 reads.

Euthanasia and the scandal of death

Criminal reprisals for exercise of euthanasia represent a atavism to which Parliament will finally be remedied. The punishment of accomplices of assisted suicide is a obscurantist reflux. It seems sarcastic to deny voluntary death to those who have no means to administrársela, even more so when motives that are argue come from religious and moral principles as contentious as sacred and heterómana definition of life.

Euthanasia is part of scope of consciousness and individual praxis. Escarmentarla with prison both emphasizes unmeasured guardianship of state as it encourages use of countries in European or community context where it has already been decriminalized. Spain is on its way to join m. And it is good for church to oppose in accordance with Creationist doctrine, but resistance cannot and should not intrude on legislative matters. Nor should it lead opposition of popular deputies who feel indebted to God's first gift.

Death is biggest scandal. It is demonstrated by childishness and frivolity with which Western societies try to hide it. Indeed, euthanasia debate has precipitated an unusual and implicit alliance of Religion and Science. Not by dogmatic coincidences, but because defense of life has stimulated respective creativity: from metaphysical fiction to empirical wonders with which assisted existence can be dilated night by night.

We are very little interested in our elders. The vocations of plastic surgeons grow while y diminish vocations of geriatricians, but to science, like to religion, it interests secret of immortality, so that extension of life by all means and in all ways It turns patient's agony into a mefistofélico experiment.

It's about preserving breath. And connecting dying man to a rosary, a respirator or a machine. A scientific miracle whose fiercely satisfies even Judeo idea of passion and torment. It is deranged perspective in which it does not matter to live better last times of our lives. It is important to live more, even if it is an artificial life, miserable and aberrant. And even if hopeless has expressed his last will away from protectionism.

It is stripped of it between religious fundamentalism and scientific fanaticism. We are so uncomfortable with death that we aspire to mask it between tubes and cables of a hospital room. A magnificent essay by American oncologist Atul Gawande, to be deadly, alludes without shortcuts to taboo of taboos. It does not apologise for euthanasia nor does it incite punishment. What it does is to renounce scientific, budgetary and technological effort granted to dying person in hopeless situation. It should prevail, argues Gawande, commitment to a dignified life. Promote it until you can with more affective and palliative resources. Live less, but live better. And not turn ICU into a sinister camera where it is terminal and strictly forbidden to die.

You can follow country opinion on Facebook, Twitter or subscribe here to Newsletter.


You have to login for comment. If you are not a member? Register now.

Login Sign Up