"The right in the streets", yesterday the debate on the end of life with Monsignor Savino and Englaro

The right in the streets, yesterday the debate on the end of life with Monsignor Savino and Englaro

In the morning, for the third edition of "Il diritto in piazza", the debate "The doctor-patient relationship: between deontology and responsibility" was held with the participation of Rosa Anna Depalo, president of the GIP section of the Court of Bari, Nicola Romualdi , responsible for RCG and Legal Protection - Danni Retali Generali Spa, and Pier Luigi Pantani, responsible for Health Professions - Non-Life Retail Generali Spa.

Depalo said that "the doctor must be found guilty only beyond reasonable doubt. We must ascertain that the damage suffered by the patient is really due to the conduct of the doctor. The scientific method, the backward search, is a process rule. We have a clue from which to then go back to the procedural truth ». Romualdi explained that "the subject is complex. The protocols that must protect citizens and doctors (terrified figures because they are the subject of complaints) should be regulated by the scientific committee. The Gelli Law, in addition to defining the obligation of insurance coverage for hospitals and professionals, sets the scope of liability coverage. Finally it bypasses the doubts caused by application difficulties ". Infinde, Pantani concluded by stating: «We must be able to protect both professionals and patients. The state has made a social action, saying that coverage is necessary, but we have stopped in the middle streets, because there is no immediate sanction for those who are not insured ».

Vincenzo Cirasola, national president of Anapa, added that: "The car assures everyone, while other insurances are not mandatory and Italy is behind on this issue. Italians spend 108 billion on gambling: we invest in risk, but not in insurance. Health insurance costs less than an iPhone and you can have the right to choose the best Italian doctors. It is true, insurance is not necessary because there is public health, but I invite you to think about it ".

Yesterday afternoon, instead, the festival continued in the Traetta Theater with the debate on health and end of life entitled "With dignity, to the end?"

Mons. Francesco Savino (Bishop of Cassano allo Jonio) introduced the meeting, stating: "Some decrees in recent years have seen me as a bishop appealing to conscientious objection or civil disobedience. We must rediscover the beauty of saying 'I'm not there'. I make a secular speech, we must not give up the region. In this first part of the millennium we are experiencing transhumanism and transcristianism. We are moving towards giving artificial intelligence a series of tasks. Law 38 of 2010 on palliative care is still too disregarded today. We must return to dialogue, but without ideological affiliations. Today the ideology of the unique, standardized and homologating imperialist thought is affirming itself. I imagine the thinking heart or the emotional intelligence of Englaro in the dilemma between the absolute love he had for Eluana and the decision to say that his daughter should no longer be in that cage that has become his body. Faced with these frontier situations, I am not able to make apodictic or dogmatic statements, but I just ask questions. Only those exist in the face of terminal illness. Today we should ask ourselves big questions of meaning and meaning, always oriented to the person.

Then, how bitter as an Italian citizen to see the silent Parliament for 12 months on these big questions. If the judges are to be alternates, our democracy is very weak. Faced with political poverty, it is obvious that the Court had to express itself. But beware: there is only one press release for now, not a sentence. We are not talking about euthanasia, but about facilitating suicide, and it sets three very specific and limiting conditions ".

Beppino Englaro, then, recounted his personal experience: «Ours is a story of the power of simplicity. Eluana in 1992 immediately entered into a coma after a serious accident, but had already seen resuscitation following the accident of a friend of his, Alessandro. She was very strong, determined, she knew well what she wanted from her life. She was a pure blood of freedom, for her things were either white or black. The first to talk to the doctors was her friend from school, she was the first thing that wondered what Eluana wanted in this situation. And the answer was clear, was to finish everything there. Reading Sciascia I realized that at some point it is not the last hope to die, but the last hope to die.

We asked him about the state of the art of medicine in the specific situation of Eluana and he told us "A little above zero". We claimed dialogue, the possibility of choosing what to do. They offered her the best care, but they also had the worst result. We turned to everyone in four years and we looked like two strays that barked at the moon. A first response came eight years later with hydration and forced feeding and for the first time, thanks to the newspapers, we talked about our situation. Only by falling into it did we understand what it meant and the answers we received from the Court of Cassation. No one can decide for us, Eluana's self-determination had nothing to do with euthanasia. The doctor had to talk, and it took us 15 years to find out. To be told something already constitutionally written. We parents who had had such a rare pearl as Eluana, we could not fail to respect his wishes, his desires ".

The extreme and pitiful cases cannot be carried around to make propaganda to a type of proposed law (which has a precise radical matrix). In other words, it is not possible to legislate on the emotional wave generated by a case, assimilating all possible cases to that. The law on end of life, which must apply to all citizens, must be discussed in the competent forums (ie the Parliament) with reason and without blackmailing the news.