Rassegna stampa etica

The three rights violated by the English judicial system

BEST INTERESTA person's right to medical treatment, the right of an innocent disabled person, the right and protection of the family; these are the three rights that the English judicial system is trampling on in its delirium of omnipotence.
Looking at them closely, they are three interlinked rights: to infringe one of these infringes them all.

by Paul Freeman
Translate from Italian version by Laura Tiberi

In Alfie's situation, three rights are being violated.

We need to say this very clearly.

The first is the right to medical treatment. The best interest of a person is linked to his inalienable right to medical treatment. This does not mean that such right leads inevitably to an improvement or to a cure. Nor does it mean that it leads to a state of well-being that can be measured in terms of efficiency. It recalls the ineradicable dignity of an individual, which cannot be decided on by any authority, but can only be recognized as such, as per article 3 of the universal declaration of Human rights "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.

The right to medical treatment is linked to article 1 of the aforementioned declaration, which recalls that “[human beings] are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”. Therefore there is an unavoidable interconnection that leads to mutual, supportive and subsidiary care.
Where ordinary medical treatment may be disproportionate, not in monetary or benefit terms, but in terms of respect, then palliative treatment is offered, but this is still a treatment. Such palliative treatment takes care of the person in a peaceful and loving manner, offering all essential care for as long as necessary, whilst respecting  the criteria of “proportionality of care” and “responsible proximity”
Euthanistic processes are not accelerated, neither directly nor indirectly, neither intentionally nor in practice. The person is taken care of by maintaining vital life support, always, unless this causes objective unbearable physical pain or especially causes problems that put the life or health of the patient at serious risk. Life support is not a therapy but a necessity and in this case palliative sedation is decisive. However this does not precede the cessation of life support, but avoids its disproportionate use. This is called love and it makes us more beautiful as well as more human.

Responsible proximity is first of all applied by those who have ineradicable parental responsibility, as well as doctors who are attentive to this. To break the relationship child-family and child-family-doctor means failing to deliver “Responsible proximity”. Legislation must protect this relationship with all possible means and not destroy this through coercive dispositions that deny the nature of the fundamental child-family relationship. Of course it is important to avoid therapeutic obstinancy, but this is not Alfie’s case. No life can be “futile”; only a therapy but not life support, as we have just said.
Instead a legal decision may be “futile” as is in this case, where the legislator puts an anthropological value on the quality of life of a patient and breaks “proximal responsibility”. Thus it represents a legal decision that is doubly wrong and serious in terms of human rights.

At the same time it is important to avoid therapeutic abandonment, which is Alfie’s case, given that his parents are not able to choose, as would be right, the best place and method on how to treat their son until the end of his days.
Little Alfie has become “hostage” in all ways to a short-sighted legal system and a hospital which considers itself unquestionably the best structure to accompany Alfie.

The second right is that of the innocent disabled person. The innocent who has any kind of disability is a precious and inescapable source of human dignity and in a certain sense he is a form of world heritage. At this point we need to ask ourselves a fundamental question: am I not also disabled? If I am not at present, could I become disabled? He who loves the innocent disabled person not only loves that uncompromising uniqueness, marked by limitations and its precious and unique beauty, but also loves his own body and person. That person loves his own limits and recognises these as an existential feature of being in the world together with other brothers and sisters.
Thus he reaches the height of his humanisation. 

The third right is the right and protection of the family. No human institution can substitute this primal relationship and this belonging, despite its imperfections and wounds. In the most serious cases it supplements it. This support recalls the uniqueness of the family, of a father and mother, which cannot be replaced but only supported, if needed. This support may also provide the innocent who does not have a family with similar protection, custody and care (in substance and form, in archetypal roles and symbols).
The degree to which a nation loves, nurtures and respects the family reveals its degree of civilization and human, social and political maturity.

If these three rights are not respected together, but abused, denied and manipulated, the result is not “the best interest” but an inhuman legal and social mask.
This is typical of who tries to clumsily copy God and has failed in every aspect - human, social, political and educational.
Who discards and produces a similar culture will in turn be discarded.

Iscriviti alla Newsletter

Iscriviti alla mailing list di cristiano cattolico. Conforme al Decreto Legislativo 30 giugno 2003, n.196, per la tutela delle persone e e il rispetto del trattamento di dati personali, in ogni momento è possibile modificare o cancellare i dati presenti nel nostro archivio. Vedi pagina per la privacy per i dettagli.
Per cancellarsi usare la stessa mail usata al momento dell'iscrizione.