Among the
urgent
laws
approved by a government that has acted without parliamentary control since it decreed the state of alarm and uses the legislative roll promoted by the radical left, the independentistas and the political heirs of ETA, the one on euthanasia is, without a doubt,
the that keeps Spanish society more divided
.
The implications of a moral order and respect for human dignity that
a practice
has
that alters the way of understanding medicine
and that is authorized only in
five more countries (demonstrating their ethical, professional and intellectual complexity)
would have required a calm cross-sectional debate
in which the voices of recognized experts in the field, bioethics committees and representatives of the main and majority religious confession in Spain should have been heard. What happened, however, was
an express law that did not have, either, the necessary political consensus
as evidenced by the survey data we released today.
The citizens who are in favor of the new law are, for the most part, voters of the PSOE, while the supporters of the
no
They are above all center-right voters who have been deliberately excluded from a decision with profound implications for the ethical conception of social organization and tolerant coexistence of different ways of explaining human existence.
In
a crude, irresponsible and insane propaganda montage
, the left - radical and moderate, but in no case the majority - has once again wanted to claim a moral superiority that it lacks, but which identifies it with a supposed progressivism, and
stigmatize in a sectarian way those who do not share their ideological dogmas
Furthermore, the drafting of the law would have required
rigorous conceptual precision
l for such a momentous issue, that differentiated euthanasia administered by state officials,
assisted suicide
-which concerns the inviolable individual freedom- and the right to
quality palliative care
, a claim that has never found the political will for its development, depriving so many citizens who demand them in the most difficult moments of their lives.
Of the heartbreaking testimony that can be read today in our pages - in which
Angel Hernandez
relates the painful and agonizing death of his wife,
Maria Jose Carrasco
, to which he himself provided a poisonous substance - it is clear how important it is to distinguish each of the practices that, from now on, will have to have the obligatory medical collaboration,
violating the consciences of many doctors
contrary to them.
The problems to guarantee that abuses in the implementation of the law will not occur are those that have led many countries to backtrack in their legislative initiatives, since, due to the wide casuistry,
the express will of the patient cannot always be counted on
, having to be third parties or even the State, through the doctors, who make the decision for the patient.
History tragically teaches us that where the State has a tool to
decide who has or does not have the right to live
, we are on the threshold of totalitarianism.
To continue reading for free
Sign inSign up
Or
subscribe to Premium
and you will have access to all the web content of El Mundo
According to the criteria of The Trust Project
Know more