There is something very important to clarify about this case: Eluana was NOT just in coma, but in a state that in italian is called
(vegetative state), which is an evolution of coma. What they call to be
"aware" is some brain activity, but this doesn't mean that the patient feels pain, emotions and so on: on the contrary, when the brain cells which
are in charge to transmit the signals of pain are dead, there is no way to feel pain, according to science: it's basically some veggie that you have
to give water and food every now and then, being aware that she won't never wake up.
What raised the issue in Italy is that there is a law that warrants to everyone the right to refuse a medical treatment
[more infos here
] (for example a month ago a woman
refused to get her leg
, she died because of that but nothing has happened with media), another example are Jehovah witnesses, who have the right to refuse
even blood transfusion, no matter if this brings them to die.
The case of Eluana was different, because what was being debated was whether to continue to feed her or not: since many think that to feed
artificially someone is not a medical procedure, and since she expressed the will (in case she would find herself in such conditions) to refuse every
possible medical assistance, her father had to aim to tribunals the issue, and a judge, the highest in degree, decided that he was right (unappealable
verdict): basically he knew that his daughter would have preferred to die rather than "living" that way, he knew that there was a law warranting
that right, but at the same time a political side of Italy (the majority, endorsed, supported and put under the pressure by the Vatican) started
claming that it would have been a murder, euthanasia and stuff like that.
In Italy there are 2600 people in the same (more or less) conditions of Eluana, and now the government is going to issue a law that will force the
artificial feeding, regardless the will of the patient: the president of the republic already refused to sign the first version of the law, because
first was not urgent (since involving at least 2600 cases), second it was in breach of the previous mentioned law which warrants the right to refuse a
specific type of medical assistance. BUt the next version of the law won't need his signature so it will be approved for sure.
The biggest issue is that who is deciding on this matter have no clue about technical, scientific, politic, moral and emotive facets of the problem:
they are just riding the horse sent to them by the Vatican, hoping to get the votes of those who believe that to live like a veggie can be called
human life. I don't think it's human life and anyway law is law, but i respect who think different from me.
[edit on 11/2/2009 by internos]