Minister Sacconi formal government action that threatens to stop the hands of doctors should stop feeding artificial life that keeps Eluana, Cardinal Barragan, president of the Pontifical Council for health professionals, seeking to stop "the murderous hand." While the story of the young man in a vegetative state for 17 years seems to be coming to an end, somebody is not satisfied in every way and try to ignore the judgments of the judiciary who have said yes to the will expressed by parents and by the same Eluana girl. We asked Stefano Rodota, legally authoritative, attentive to issues of secularism and the rights of the individual, an opinion on this scenario. 'It is not in place today - says former guarantor of protection of personal data - a very serious and dangerous conflict on the issue of legality and respect for human rights. These invocations, these attempts to prevent it from giving effect to a res judicata does not come from individuals who appeal to moral criteria. In this sense, let alone agree on the content and even less on the words of Cardinal Barragan. " But at least
does not have an institutional role. But when such statements and announcements of behaviors are to be invested by political leaders particularly important role as a minister here opens a conflict. "
That certainly is not new, right Professor?
Yes, this is an open conflict for a long time. The earlier acts, declared absolutely illegal, they are explained Three attempts to block roads through more or less correct from the legal point of view the implementation of the decision: the first attempt, the Parliament which has just raised a conflict between the judiciary and Parliament itself, saying that it was not for the courts to give guidance on the matter. The Constitutional Court quickly dismissed this as an attitude is not correct and has assessed that the judiciary has been put forward as part of its powers and its powers.
second attempt, Formigoni, governor of Lombardy, which says "not in my house." This act was challenged before the Administrative Court of Lombardy, which annulled the decision of the president. Third, the so-called act of address Sacconi, who as time goes on, more has been studied by those who have legal knowledge of grammar, plus a measure has proved legally impossible. So much so that the governor of the Friuli Venezia Giulia, which we know is a region administered by the center-right did not consider it binding qull'atto invitation. So we are faced with a conflict that is repeated again after that in all institutions of the majority of these efforts the Government or the Government as such were considered to be absolutely illegal.
A severe tear institutional ...
is a very serious breach of constitutional legality in the game because they are simultaneously state powers and individual rights and people's fundamental. This assessment as a whole. So I find it strange not to use other words, the demand for Buttiglione to arrange an immediate meeting of the Council of Ministers has approved a law that would clearly have the objective to block the implementation of a sentence. I've seen all the colors in this country but to say that a law can prevent implementation of a sentence may have to violate the logic of constitutional politics.
Professor, we also face a serious violation of the personal sphere?
in this case I would not use the word privacy. Here is the order of compliance dignity of persons. A principle that must guide us in every moment. Here, the dignity of dying can not be clearly seen something on which we will doggedly with a certain violence. From this point of view at other times it seemed that there is an appalling lack of Christian charity. Today we must say the laity, although that expression of Christian charity, continues to please me, that the principle of dignity, which is one of the founding principles of a democratic state, is violently assaulted. And do not say is that the dignity of those who must see their own survival but made compulsory for those who must be respected in its decisions and in its being a person.
When tackling these issues we always talk about lack of legislation. But it is not likely, given the scenario offered by the Parliament, to "fill" the gap worsening the situation? First
not emphasize the profile "legal vacuum". There is so much so in fact this gap that the courts, with some decisions, especially with the pivotal decision of this affair, that of the Supreme Court in October 2007, were able to reconstruct with great rigor the Italian legal system by making in evidence all the elements that already, without a law, lets get to the conclusion that has emerged, namely the right to refuse treatment and to die with dignity. So I use with caution, and in fact I tend not to accept the argument of the legal vacuum because it means that someone has filled more or less illegal. What did the judges is absolutely legitimate, consistent with the principles of our system and our Constitution, because they read a series of standards, as we have been taught by the Constitutional Court, according to a constitutionally. So today there is a vacuum. There may be operational aspects that need a more specific discipline. For example, the shape of the living will or the ability to appoint a trustee to an administrator of support to ensure that there are still doubts. But my fear is that you want to use the argument "we must make a law" on the living will or the protection of life until its end "natural" for a proper restoration and to step back from what already it is possible for Italian citizens, or to refuse treatment in various forms.
of Vittorio Bonanni Liberation from February 4, 2009
does not have an institutional role. But when such statements and announcements of behaviors are to be invested by political leaders particularly important role as a minister here opens a conflict. "
That certainly is not new, right Professor?
Yes, this is an open conflict for a long time. The earlier acts, declared absolutely illegal, they are explained Three attempts to block roads through more or less correct from the legal point of view the implementation of the decision: the first attempt, the Parliament which has just raised a conflict between the judiciary and Parliament itself, saying that it was not for the courts to give guidance on the matter. The Constitutional Court quickly dismissed this as an attitude is not correct and has assessed that the judiciary has been put forward as part of its powers and its powers.
second attempt, Formigoni, governor of Lombardy, which says "not in my house." This act was challenged before the Administrative Court of Lombardy, which annulled the decision of the president. Third, the so-called act of address Sacconi, who as time goes on, more has been studied by those who have legal knowledge of grammar, plus a measure has proved legally impossible. So much so that the governor of the Friuli Venezia Giulia, which we know is a region administered by the center-right did not consider it binding qull'atto invitation. So we are faced with a conflict that is repeated again after that in all institutions of the majority of these efforts the Government or the Government as such were considered to be absolutely illegal.
A severe tear institutional ...
is a very serious breach of constitutional legality in the game because they are simultaneously state powers and individual rights and people's fundamental. This assessment as a whole. So I find it strange not to use other words, the demand for Buttiglione to arrange an immediate meeting of the Council of Ministers has approved a law that would clearly have the objective to block the implementation of a sentence. I've seen all the colors in this country but to say that a law can prevent implementation of a sentence may have to violate the logic of constitutional politics.
Professor, we also face a serious violation of the personal sphere?
in this case I would not use the word privacy. Here is the order of compliance dignity of persons. A principle that must guide us in every moment. Here, the dignity of dying can not be clearly seen something on which we will doggedly with a certain violence. From this point of view at other times it seemed that there is an appalling lack of Christian charity. Today we must say the laity, although that expression of Christian charity, continues to please me, that the principle of dignity, which is one of the founding principles of a democratic state, is violently assaulted. And do not say is that the dignity of those who must see their own survival but made compulsory for those who must be respected in its decisions and in its being a person.
When tackling these issues we always talk about lack of legislation. But it is not likely, given the scenario offered by the Parliament, to "fill" the gap worsening the situation? First
not emphasize the profile "legal vacuum". There is so much so in fact this gap that the courts, with some decisions, especially with the pivotal decision of this affair, that of the Supreme Court in October 2007, were able to reconstruct with great rigor the Italian legal system by making in evidence all the elements that already, without a law, lets get to the conclusion that has emerged, namely the right to refuse treatment and to die with dignity. So I use with caution, and in fact I tend not to accept the argument of the legal vacuum because it means that someone has filled more or less illegal. What did the judges is absolutely legitimate, consistent with the principles of our system and our Constitution, because they read a series of standards, as we have been taught by the Constitutional Court, according to a constitutionally. So today there is a vacuum. There may be operational aspects that need a more specific discipline. For example, the shape of the living will or the ability to appoint a trustee to an administrator of support to ensure that there are still doubts. But my fear is that you want to use the argument "we must make a law" on the living will or the protection of life until its end "natural" for a proper restoration and to step back from what already it is possible for Italian citizens, or to refuse treatment in various forms.
of Vittorio Bonanni Liberation from February 4, 2009
0 comments:
Post a Comment