As National president of the Italian Association of Healthcare Pastorallast November 6, I received the invitation to the classroom from the secretariat of Senate of the Republicfor a hearing in presence, before the representatives of the groups of the 2nd and 10th Commissions reunited, within the framework of theexamination of bills no. 65, 104, 124, 570 and 1083 (provisions regarding voluntary medically assisted death).
The hearing was held on November 11th at 3.30 pm. I willingly accepted the invitation regarding a topic on which, as an Association AIPaSwe have been reflecting for many years. I therefore asked three AIPaS members (Don Paolo Fini, Dr. Cinzia Ceccaroli, Dr. Giovanni Donati) to collaborate with me in the drafting of a paper that discusses our thoughts regarding the very delicate topic under consideration.
In summary, it seems to AIPaS that the matter should be the subject of an in-depth discussion that competently analyzes the various issues legal, clinical, cultural, spiritual, social, economic, ethical, bioethical elements, at stake in order to promulgate a State law, which combines the right to self-determination of each person, regarding their existence, and the requests for protection of human life.
As AIPaS we are in favor of “proportionality of treatments”, against “therapeutic obstinacy”, which today is better defined with the expression “unreasonable obstinacy” and against “Euthanasia”. It is necessary to take into account the distinction between killing and letting diewhen therapeutic means become disproportionate. Killing, on the other hand, means suspending therapeutic means that are still proportionate to the patient’s situation. Therefore, a case-by-case evaluation would be needed.
We have also underlined theThe importance of palliative care, guaranteeing real access to all those who need it (not in a restricted and partial way as often happens in the area) and the advance treatment provisions commonly defined as “living wills” or “living wills”.
It is therefore an approach to the disease that puts the relationship and the patient at the centre, not persistence, not unreasonable obstinacy, not exalting the exclusive biological dimension. In fact, when one cannot recover, one can always take care of the sick.
It’s necessary a careful defense of the right to life, especially for the weakest (disabled) or for those patients on whom there may be constraints dictated by the nature and effects of serious pathologies and treatments which may affect the ability to evaluate, judge, decide and choose.
It remains open and problematic the issue of mental illnesses, some of them have among the symptoms the search for self-harming and anti-conservative attempts (see major depressions resistant to treatment). For these situations, a more adequate evaluation could be envisaged, through a clinical evaluation committee.
For the composition of Clinical evaluation committees (art.7 of bill 104) we believe they should be included, as the proposed article says, figures who deal with the biological, psychic, psychological, social, legal and ethical aspects without forgetting the spiritual one important dimension of care and assistance. We remember that spiritual assistance accompanies the patient’s treatment paths, his questions, doubts, suffering and difficulties through figures in the institution, such as the spiritual and religious assistants of hospitals and hospices.
Don Isidoro Mercuri Giovinazzo
National President of AIPaS – Italian Association of Healthcare Pastoral
