Matters of Life or Death

After the end of the painful earthly life of Eluana Englaro, that has once again seen our political class give the worst in terms of servility and dependence from the influences coming from the Vatican, the matter has now moved to the parliament, where in these days they are discussing the law on what they call the biologic legacy.
During the last days of the above mentioned event they tried to present the discussion as the confrontation between the Life Party, meaning the Catholic Church and the politician moved by the same, and an imaginary Death Party, in which would be included all those of a different opinion. Naturally this is just an elaborate lie, because what is at stake here is something more serious, more important and for this reason it requires greater attention from all parties. The matter, in fact, is not about being in favour of life or death, as they tried to present it, but rather a much more delicate point,the individual freedom of being able to decide for yourself without external interference.
What the so called Life Party constantly omits to mention is that the story of Eluana was about her personal, free decision, verified above any doubt by six trials and through the course of over ten years, a decision that was supported by constitutional right of the patient to refuse medical care. Against this free choice it has been tried also to change the Constitution of the Italian Republic.
And now the positions have not really changed: we have two laws proposed, one from the opposition defending the right to choose, and one proposed by the government, signed by Rep. Calabrò, which basically prevents you from deciding for yourself since it forces to continue the hydration and nutrition under any circumstance (it would be impossible to refuse them in your legacy) and because puts the final decision in the hands of the doctor, who could anyway decide to ignore what the legacy dictates. This is essentially the position already expressed by the Italian Episcopal Commission by its former Secretary Mons. Betori: "We are in favour of a law on the biological legacy, under the condition that the will of the patient can never be considered above that of his doctor."
We think it is by now evident what the real question is: we don not have a Life Party and a Death Party, we have some that think that any individual should be free to decide for himself, as the Constitution dictates, even refusing a medical treatment he does not want to be subjected to, and a Party that thinks that any individual should not have this freedom, but that other people should decide for them. Therefore this is not Life against Death, but Freedom against Slavery, the defense of the most basic freedon against the attempt to control the individuals in their most private moments.
Exactly for this reason we think it is fundamental to have a great effort from all those who believe in freedom to stop this attempt, and exactly for this reason we think it is incomprehensible the timidity of the leaders of the PD who want to safeguard the "freedom of conscience" of the catholic fundamentalist area in their party, that has so far conditioned too much what should be an opposition. When it comes to matters regarding such fundamental liberties, you cannot appeal to your "freedom of conscience": without freedom for yourself you cannot ask to have a free conscience. What are we waiting for, we ask? Should a law be proposed demanding the return to Catholicism as a State religion and putting out of the law and persecutable all that profess a different faith, would even then the PD leave "Freedom of conscience" to the teodem? We are talking of a law that attacks the most basic individual freedoms, this position is unacceptable and pilatesque and right for this reason, because we have an opposition without a backbone, it is fundamental that each one of us fights against this. It is worth remembering that we are not discussing something that would touch in the slightest the rights of anyone following the Catholic Church: no one would force a catholic to refuse medical treatments should he want them. On the contrary, the law proposed by the Government negates the freedom of everyone who does not follow this positions. It is fairly easy then to recognise who wants to abuse and who is abused: the voice of each of us is needed, especially in a country like this one, so asleep and so used to follow the orders of a foreign State that has almost forgotten being an independent, sovereign and, at least in theory, secular country.