Thank You Message In A Bottle For Wedding

Live Together, Die Alone

Qui di seguito post di Authan . Oggi c'è pure un ennesimo contributo di Paolo .

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Né consolazione, né disapprovazione, né elogio, né biasimo, né simpatia, né rifiuto. Quando una persona decide di porre fine alla propria esistenza, the only feeling very appropriate that we should respect it. And the respect, in cases like these, it is expressed in only one way: with silence.

had all been silent, those MPs who yesterday polemicized between them in the House during the commemoration of Mario Monicelli would have been better. All words, all , both in the right, both in the wrong (you do not need to go into detail) have been misplaced.

Monicelli If he wanted that his suicide was regarded as a manifesto, a teaching, a universal will, I believe that, as sick, deaf and could be blind, have found a way to let us know explicitly. What he did he did it only for himself.

It 'been a long and extraordinary journey that the director has taken on the ground, in the company of his fellows. But the last stretch of road if he is taking for himself. Why quell'approdo at any time is fulfilled, you can not share with anyone, not even wanting to. Live Together, Die Alone.

----------------------------------------------

Fabrizio De André, "The will " (1963)

Questo ricordo non vi consoli
Quando si muore, si muore soli

Myrtle Beach Houses For High School Senior Week

obscurantist? No, illiberal and totalitarian

Due post pure oggi. Qui sotto Paolo , a parte Authan .

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[ Paolo ]

Buongiorno,
la notizia del suicidio di Mario Monicelli, e in precedenza, la partecipazione a " Vieni via con me " di Mina Welby ha portato (secondo me impropriamente) a riparlare di eutanasia in vari contesti, tra cui i palazzi della politica e la Zanzara . Yesterday

transmission in the main lead and decided that we should define " obscurantist" (term used by the shoulder Porec) a state that denies its citizens the opportunity to decide how to die, even in cases where the living conditions are reasonably able to be doubts about its continuation. As usual I could not understand why Giuseppe Cruciani has this idea, as long as they have expressed, which I doubt highly.

obscurantist and medieval probably define such a state is improper. But I think you are carp and sofisticheggiando. What state (Italy, but not only) is a state that holds sole so the power to decide life and death of its citizens, denying them the opportunity to exercise their free choice in the most intimate sphere. It 'a state that chooses to impose on all the choices of some of the more personal areas, instead of allowing everyone to decide for itself in a field that is not public.

obscurantist We do not want to call it? I can agree. The correct definition would illiberal and totalitarian . Some would surely have liked the term freedom-in other contexts, and was obviously correct in this.

Who wants to die considering their condition unworthy of being lived in Italy has denied this possibility. Who wants to save their loved ones to the spectacle of a lifeless body remained partly dependent on machines for years, maybe it is denied that possibility. Who would save years of unnecessary treatments on an inanimate and unconscious, the costs of which would see maybe be better for the future of their children are denied this possibility. For those who want to spare yourself the experience of pain beyond certain levels, the absolute inability of total dependence on drugs and strangers are denied this possibility

E 'true, as the Binetti, that there is no heroism in covering certain choices, and these may be in a lot of despair. And I think the state should do everything possible to ensure that each person is guaranteed the best possible living conditions and alleviate the despair in every way. But there are situations in which there is no reason to impose any unnecessary suffering, when the future does not open to any possibility of hope and pain cancels everything else.

Nobody wants to impose on those who do not want assisted dying, but who can deny access to this practice (possibility, not an obligation, it should be noted), in an illiberal way, also requires all other conditions that may not considered tolerable. A choice so illiberal and totalitarian.

Hello Paul