Euthanasia law: “It is a serious mistake for society” according to Pablo Jourdan
The bishop of the diocese of Melo and thirty -three analyzed the Euthanasia Law, a norm that already has a half parliamentary sanction after approval in the Chamber of Deputies.
“We think that the approval of the Euthanasia Law is a serious mistake for Uruguayan society and that it will bring serious negative consequences” He said about an issue that divides not only legislators but Uruguayan citizens in general.
“We all want the person to be relieved of pain, not to suffer” It is the first argument we could touch. “The second is that how a law can give the right to take a life from a vulnerable person and the third is to manipulate the language giving a different meaning to the one that is usual in the terms. That brings a lot of confusion to society, for example, decent death or natural death” express Monsignor Pablo Jourdan.
“The law talks about chronic diseases, do not talk about terminal diseases” He pointed out.
“What we all want is to alleviate pain to a loved one. We have two forms, one is palliative medicine and another is the euthanasia law. What really relieves the patient? When we talk about pain, we have on the one hand the physical pain and on the other hand the spiritual pain that is broader, which is the pain of loneliness, of anguish, of having to face death, which in medicine is called total pain. said during the live interview of THE PROFESSIONAL RADIO.
“The only one who attends that pain is palliative medicine with a team of professionals. He must be a painting in pain that knows what dose of medically supplying to remove that pain. Then there must be psychologists, psychiatrists and social assistants” detailed. “It has to be an open team because the patient is religious can resort to someone who contains it spiritually, a team that works with the family too. That is the only answer for a person who is suffering” The bishop of Melo and thirty -three emphasized.
“The euthanasia law says that the first criterion to remove pain, which proposes in less than 20 days, is to kill the person. In that period a general practitioner will be attended that will later be based on another general practitioner to confirm the diagnosis and take life” held.
“The person is 20 days without a correct, integral, desperate treatment. It is the argument upside down. It is a word game that is done with other interests” said.
“Does one seek to take the pain to the loved one or take his life? Jourdan asked. “To remove pain there is only one way: palliative medicine” insisted. “The other way leads to a few days of despair” He added.
“Another very serious aspect is now the right to kill a vulnerable person and call him dignified death” express. “Until now, all international human right speaks of the dignity of the human person, which is dignified is the human person who is a way of saying that has an absolute, unique, irreplaceable value, which is not lost due to any circumstance and conditions. That is what humanity understands. The first value that arises from dignity is human life, the right to take care of it anymore no longer to kill” He stressed.
“All the right has developed under this criterion, now there is a total change” pointed out. “Now the State by law can decide to kill a person and still a person who is vulnerable. In this way the power is being given to a general practition to give the death penalty to a vulnerable person. There is a total change of criteria.” reiterated.
