It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
It's time again for some seriuous debate.
Eluana Englaro has been in permanent vegetative state since a car accident 17 years ago.
Her father battled for 10 years with the system to allow Eluana to die.
Finally 1 month ago the High Court decided that it was legal to allow the doctors to stop any medication but most importantly they allowed the medical staff to stop feeding her.
In Italy Euthanasia is illegal, it is not illegal though for patients to refuse treatment.
The main issues of controversy in this case are 2:
-Many believe that she shouldn't have died because she didn't actively refused treatment, in fact her father decided for her by saying that her daughter told him so before the accident.
-Many believe that food and water should not be considered as part of a treatment, therefore medics should't be allowed to stop feeding her.
This issue has been splitting Italy for the last month, the government even tried to pass a uncostitutional decree in order to save Eluana, but the President didn't rectified it causing a constitutional conflict, apparently the first one in 60 years of Italian constitution.
I have to say though that considering Italy is widely a christian country, many Italians (if not the majority) supported her father decision to allow Eluana to die, even going against the church will, which pushed the government to intervene swiftly.
So Euthanasia is one of the most controversial issues ever, even within religious community it cause great divides.
Therefore my question is, providing the person in question has a terminal and painful disease or in the case of Eluana where the person is in a permant vegetative state, are you in favour of protracting life at any cost, or are you in favour of allowing people to decide for a dignified death istead?