Eluana Englaro Dead
Eluana Englaro, the comatose woman whom Italian prime minister Berlusconi declared “in the condition to have babies“, died a couple of hours ago. My immediate reaction was a sigh of relief and muttering, ironically, “thank god”.
Regardless of whether one agrees that she should have been taken off life support or not, the political circus surrounding the case was absolutely tasteless. Berlusconi is a pig both for getting involved in a bereaved family’s private life and for suggesting that a woman’s primary function is to have babies, and don’t even get me started on the Vatican (who has magnanimously announced that god will forgive Mr Englaro for wanting to let his daughter go).
My condolences to the Mr Englaro and any other members of the family. I hope they can finally get some closure.
Unfortunately, nothing got resolved. Still, I share your relief. I wish peace for the family.
Comment by mikespeir — Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 04:10
I’m Italian.
I’m not a Catholic or a religious person. In fact, I’m an atheist. And from an atheistic standpoint, I find it obvious that forcing euthanasia over a person who can’t express herself is murder. I also know other atheists who think the same.
First of all, Eluana was not “comatose” - she was in a vegetative state, like Terry Schiavo. It’s a big difference.
Second, Berlusconi did not say that a woman’s primary function is to have babies. Your source probably quotes him out of context. He made a series of statements intended to correct the public misconception that Eluana Englaro was “dead” or that she was attached to a machine. To that end he underscored: 1) that Eluana breathed with her own lungs; 2) that although she was being fed with a tube she still had the ability to swallow; 3) that her brain was alive and sent electric signals; 4) that he opened and closed her eyes; and 5) that in theory she could even have a baby.
Eluana’s father says that her daughter would have wanted to die. However, the only way we know this is from what her father says. Would you kill a person over the word of a single witness? Even if Eluana’s father tells the truth, would you bind the life of a person to a single casual statement made in the past? How often do we say things we don’t really believe?
You seem to assume that the life of someone like Eluana is entirely worthless. But people in a coma, and even more so people in a vegetative state, are able to perceive the outside world. Statements of the contrary are easily refuted - just ask the people who have been directly involved! My own grandmother woke up from a coma, and she told me about hearing people speaking to her during that time. In Italy, Salvatore Crisafulli is famous for having awakened from a vegetative state that lasted many years. He says that during all those years, he saw and heard everything that happened around him, but could not give signs of consciousness. He says he was in despair every time he heard people refering to him as “dead”, because he felt alive.
Two points:
1- If these people can hear and see, then the life of such people may have value even if they lost any ability to recover. Who said that you can’t enjoy life when you can still see and hear things? And even in those case in which they can’t see and hear, they still have brain activity, so they can presumably harbor thoughts and dreams. They are not “dead”.
2- If these people can hear and see, then they might also feel pain. This is important because both Terry Schiavo and Eluana Englaro have been starved to death, which is an extremely cruel and brutal method of killing. This is far from “mercy”.
Comment by Caballaria — Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 06:16
No one can know if a state where you can’t talk, express and recognize is “life” or not, and no one will never find it out. So, if she’s alive, is possible that in opposition with every scientific evidence she could think. Think about it, you could understand your situation and you are locked in a bed, without moving, without talking and probably without hearing and seeing, can you imagine for 1 year, and for 2,4,6,10,15,17 years? I really can’t, but i could just hope she died 17 years ago, or at least i will hope for me.
Comment by stefano solinas — Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 10:37
My reaction when I heard of Eluana Englaro’s death was “Thank God”.
I would have like to see Eluana live, but was the condition she was in still be called life? I don’t think so and there was no hope that she would ever wake up and go back to being the person she was before she had the car accident that led her to a persistent vegetative state 17 years ago.
BTW, even if Eluana had woken up years ago, she suffered a spinal chord injury in that same car accident that would have condemned her to paralysis.
Comment by Francesca — Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 12:18
Dear Caballaria, if you manage to read this mesaage, would you be so kind as to contact us on the email above? We’d like to talk to you about in one of our programmes. Thanks, BBC World Service/ World Have Your Say
Comment by BBC WHYS — Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 15:09
sorry, the email is bbcworldhaveyoursay - at - gmail.com
Comment by BBC WHYS — Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 15:10
Caballaria, if you google for BBC World Have Your Say, you’ll see that they do not have a gmail adress. Nor did they put in a link to either of their official websites. I don’t know who the above commenter is but they’re very unlikely to be from BBC. Feel free to contact them anyway.
Now, firstly, regarding what Berlusconi said: I don’t care if he said ten or twenty other specific things about her state. Her ability to procreate is absolutely beside the point - a person who can’t make the conscious choice to get pregnant is NOT in a condition to have babies. Therefore his comment was tasteless.
Secondly, you present a number of huge “ifs” that in my mind have no bearing on this. Personally in cases like these, I trust the specialists involved. You and I are not fit to make the call, but from what I know of medical science I’d say that they are. If you have information that says the doctors involved in the case were misbehaving in some way, please do share.
Thirdly, yes, killing someone by starvation is cruel. I’m for active euthanasia. An overdose of morphine or something similar would have been far better.
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 15:19
Sorry, Felicia, but we do have a gmail address. We have the standard address worldhaveyoursay - at - bbc.co.uk, too, however, the gmail one is often quicker. But both you and Caballaria are welcome to approach us on both addresses.
Comment by BBC WHYS — Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 15:31
BBC WHYS - Alright, if you say so! I still find it vaguely suspicious that you wouldn’t include links to relevant websites…
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 15:53
Felicia, you rightly point out that I “present a number of huge ifs”. I will make precisely that point: there are many ifs, a lot of information that we don’t have.
Unfortunately, in this case specialists don’t possess such information either. They simply make strong assumptions, such as the one that Eluana didn’t feel or hear anything, or that she was beyond recovery. The court that ruled for euthanasia also lacked information and made strong assumptions, such as that Eluana possessed all the medical knowledge necessary to make a choice of euthanasia and that she actually made such a choice.
Consider a best and worst case scenario.
In a best case scenario, Eluana is able to think, is able to perceive the outside world, is not suffering, feels loved, and doesn’t wish for euthanasia.
In a worst case scenario, she can’t perceive anything, can’t even think, and if she could think she would wish herself dead.
We don’t know. Not even specialists can tell. And when we don’t know, we should not kill, for the same reason that we don’t send people to jail without certain proof.
As for Berlusconi’s comment, clearly a person in the state of Eluana is not in a condition to get pregnant, and Berlusconi didn’t suggest otherwise. His point was that if Eluana ovaries work, this is one of several signs of good health (using the expression “good health” relatively, for a person in her state). And if she’s in good health, there’s hardly any need to “put an end to her sufference”.
Comment by Caballaria — Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 16:23
Caballaria - Again, you’re making assumptions, this time about what assumptions the doctors were making. I think they have more to back their case than you have yours, or they would never have agreed that this was a viable course of action.
And I still don’t see how someone’s ovaries functioning is in any way relevant to this. Plenty of people with fulfilling lives have various body parts out of order, including reproductive organs, limbs and senses. But they’re all conscious and can interact with the world, which is something I think is absolutely fundamental to human life. So, again - her ovaries are not relevant to the discussion.
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 16:29
Felicia, the doctors didn’t “agree that this was a viable course of action”. There was a very heated debate among doctors, and the very fact that there was so much medical dissent proves my point: there is at least reasonable doubt, so we should better not kill.
See for instance here
http://www.lifenews.com/bio2699.html
or here
http://www.lifenews.com/bio2738.html
The degree of doubt is even greater from a legal standpoint. Eluana didn’t write anywhere that she would like to get killed if she were ever in such a situation. I think you and I can agree that there’s no proof of that other than the word of the father, who may be lying. This is an ugly precedent. It means that if you enter a vegetative state, you can be killed simply if a relative of yours says so, even if you never expressed such desire before entering the vegetative state.
Neither Berlusconi nor I are saying that working ovaries are fundamental to human life. But phisical disease or devastation is a requisite for mercy killing. Berlusconi’s remark about Eluana’s ovaries were part of a larger point - that Eluana’s body is not suffering, therefore there might not be the requisites for killing her.
Comment by Caballaria — Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 17:10
By the way I’m sorry about sending multiple copies of the same post before. I’m a bit confused about how this site works.
Comment by Caballaria — Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 17:35
The doctors didn’t all “agree” about this course of action, in fact there has been a heated debate among doctors at national level over this issue. This shows that there’s a lot of room for doubt and uncertainty. In such debates, I’ve noticed that the proponents of euthanasia themselves sometimes make the “we don’t know/we have no proof” point. We have no proof that she can think or feel pain, so let’s do as if she doesn’t, they say. Well if we have no proof (and no proof of the contrary), we should do as if she does, I think.
Someone’s ovaries functioning are relevant to this, because a prerequisite for mercy killing is physical sufference. Not all those who have a troubled body should undergo euthanasia, but certainly those who don’t have a troubled body should not undergo euthanasia. The remark about Eluana’s ovaries (and lungs and brains) was to make the point that Eluana’s body is not as troubled as required for euthanasia.
Comment by Caballaria — Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 17:46
mostest
Most unnecessary controversy this week: Eluana Englaro Dead Dumbest thing I’ve see all week: Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live Most current news of the day: SENATE OKS STIMULUS PLAN Most scariest commentary: Why It Truly Is Blood for Oil M…
Trackback by Greg Laden's Blog — Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 20:13
Try to take her place for 3 days and if you wish to live and be part of that “life” till the end you can call it murrder! You don’t like to think, just for a little bit. It’s hard.. Oooo.. What?! It’s Amazing! You can Think! Eluana couldn’t! Just beath and stay in a bad and call that a Life! F***ers! Murrder! HA!
Comment by Zgaiba — Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 22:27
Caballaria - you seem to be entirely missing the point that for me, in this case, the condition of her body is irrelevant. All that matters when deciding about the euthanasia of an unconscious person is the condition of her brain.
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 23:29
One thing that bothered me in both this case and the Schiavo case is the notion that how we terminate the body matters. If we believe the person is dead then morphene overdose, starvation, impalement with a pointy sword should all be the same. Such considerations only make sense in regard to a) how the heirs wish to dispose of the body b) health and c) ease of clean up d) other laws about disposal of bodies that are relevant
Comment by Joshua Zelinsky — Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 02:06
Joshua - You’re right. When I mentioned morphine I was talking about assisted suicide in general. When it comes to braindead or similarly afflicted people simply turning off the machines should be enough.
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 02:11
The Catholic “church” should pray for forgiveness from the Lord for themselves in trying to artificially keep Eluana from Him as Paul wrote To live is Christ, to die is gain.
Comment by Gerald Connelly — Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 04:53
Caballaria - your defence of Berlosconi i think belies your support of his fascist ways. Not much has changed in Italy really.
Comment by Gerald Connelly — Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 04:58
Felicia, I see your point, if Berlusconi had been debating your particular positions, his statement would have been indeed irrelevant. However, his statements were directed to the misconception that Eluana was devastated and suffering, and that this was a reason to let her die.
In any case whether or not his remarks are relevant, what I fail to understand, which is also what attracted me to this discussion in the first place, is how this makes the premier a pig. You seem to be very sensitive to remarks about ovaries! If he had made the very same point only about the ability to breathe (which he did by the way), would you have said that he is a “pig” for thinking that the value of a woman is only her ability to breathe? Certainly not. This is why I mentioned all the other statements he made about Eluana’s body. To attach a sexist agenda to these statements is preposterous.
Gerald Connelly, I would feel offended by your “fascist” label if it wasn’t so ridiculous. Mussolini got to to power by violent intimidation, abolished free elections and free speech, and attacked other nations.
Berlusconi has been stepping in and out of office for the last fifteen years, with his opponents governing everytime he lost, and despite what you may have heard, he faces open opposition from most of newspapers and half of national television channels. The situation would be extremely different if he were, as you say, “fascist”.
This is also ironic because back then the Fascists and the Nazis were great fans of mercy killing.
See here:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-euthanasia.htm
Comment by Caballaria — Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 11:50
Joshua, Terry Schiavo was not braindead.
Comment by Caballaria — Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 12:27
Caballaria - if you had my ovaries you’d be sensitive about them too. -.-
Put it like this: if Eluana had been a man, do you think it would be at all likely that Berlusconi would declare that “he is in a condition to have babies”?
Also congratulations Caballaria, Godwin’s law is now fulfilled.
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 16:03
Felicia - congratulate Gerald Connelly, the one who mentioned Fascism, not me.
Put it like this: if the Italian premier had been female and the person in a vegetative state had been male, do you think anybody would have considered the same remark offensive?
Comment by Caballaria — Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 16:44
Caballaria - Godwin applies to Hitler and Nazis, not fascism as far as I’m aware. But yeah, bringing fascism up was unproductive.
And that makes no sense. My point was that if the patient were male his reproductive potential would have been ignored, regardless of the sex of the prime minister. If both were female, the remark would have been just as sexist.
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 17:14
I agree that if the patient were male his reproductive potential would have been ignored, and that would have been chiefly because whether a woman in a vegetative state has a menstrual cycle or not (some don’t) is a very noticeable, dramatic, and medically significant difference.
Whatever the male equivalent for this is (ability to have an erection?) is not as noticeable and dramatic.
Speaking of productivity, discussing whether or not one person’s remark is sexist surely isn’t as interesting or useful as discussing euthanasia.
Perhaps it’s my fault to have insisted on that subject.
Comment by Caballaria — Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 17:30
Caballaria, where did I claim that Schiavo was brain dead?
Comment by Joshua Zelinsky — Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 17:30
Caballaria - I think it’s about time we wrapped up here. I’d like to point out what I wrote in my OP: Whatever you believe about this particular case, I still hope we can agree that making a political and religious circus around a suffering family like that is disrespectful and insensitive. I’m very much for an active political discussion about euthanasia (we don’t really have one in Sweden, politicians don’t even want to touch the subject), and if a person of sound mind who would like to undergo assisted suicide could make their own case then obviously that’s fine. But in this case, not so much.
Sorry if I’m not making much sense. I’m tired from not having gotten much sleep on account of being in the condition to have babies. I hate being female sometimes…
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 17:35
Joshua - “the notion that how we terminate the body matters”
I thought you were reasoning in terms of body versus brains. In the Schiavo case not only her body was terminated, her brains as well.
I don’t think theres is any proof that a person in Terry Schiavo’s condition can’t perceive pain. Thus, if you have to kill her, at least a painless method should be used.
Comment by Caballaria — Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 19:07
By the way Felicia, I’m male.
I think I should have said this because when discussing sexism-related topic, it should be better to state one’s gender.
Comment by Caballaria — Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 19:09
Some points:
Ms Englaro actual weight was around 30 kilograms. Is having babies even in question in such a state?
Beppino Englaro, her father, invited Mr Berlusconi to visit her daughter personally, to realize how his statements were far from the truth.
But, guess what, Mr Berlusconi did not even replied.
Mrs Lario, Mr Berlusconi’s second wife, had an abortion during the 7th month of pregnancy (well after the legal term) because the kid was handicapped. I do not want to comment on this event, that I consider a private drama that deserves at least some tact. But the fact that Mr Berlusconi is now trying to become the champion of “the worth of life, no matter in which conditions” is at least grotesque.
Mr Berlusconi also referred to Beppino Englaro as to a man tying to get rid of a dead-weight. He said that nuns were the only ones responsible for the care of Ms Englaro and the father never did anything.
Since I have been following this case for at least 8 years, I am not even able to comment on this disgraceful statement.
The will of Ms Englaro has been determined by Italian courts at every judicial level, and confirmed by the highest court of the country. This is also why Mr Berlusconi’s decree was not signed by President Napolitano; It was unconstitutional. It was an attempt to subvert the constitutional division of powers.
Beyond all the above considerations, there is general awareness, in Italy, that situations like that of Ms Englaro are generally solved (with the same outcome) privately. But here the father, Beppino Englaro, wanted and demanded the State to take responsibility, or at least to express itself, on this matter, without leaving the family alone in its private drama. This was the State response: that is probably better to keep doing everything silently and privately. At least, this way, the Vatican is not likely to step in.
Comment by Marta — Thursday, February 12, 2009 @ 00:24
Marta (sei italiana? vuoi che ti risponda nella nostra lingua?)
Felicia and I were discussing sexism, now if one thing is sexist, that’s assuming that the husband takes all the decisions in a family. As you said, Veronica Lario’s abortion was a private issue, so don’t make assumptions about it. Veronica Lario has an indipendent spirit, she openly disagrees with her husband Berlusconi on some issues, she kind of leans to the left of him, so I wouldn’t be surprised that it was she who decided for the late abortion. By the way, how many years ago did that happen? Was Berlusconi even in politics back then?
Anyhow I’m tired of defending Mr Berlusconi. I’d rather discuss the issues.
You think the government attempted to break the Constitution. You want to talk law? Let’s talk law.
Euthanasia is illegal in Italy. Let me say it again - euthanasia is illegal in Italy. Have you noticed that only in Italy everybody in the public debate carefully avoids the word euthanasia (because it would imply alleging a crime), but all over the world they’re talking the Eluana Englaro death for what it is - an euthanasia case? Because, as a matter of fact, that’s what it is. Which is to say that the Court of Cassation broke the spirit of the law. It was a shameful attempt to legalize something expressely forbidden, by setting a precedent. So it was the Court that was “subverting the constitutional division of powers”.
They did so by claiming that giving food and water is a form of “therapy”, so to withhold it isn’t euthanasia, only a merciful suspension (or “rejection”, as if it were Eluana deciding) of therapy for a terminal patient. Which Eluana certainly wasn’t. A terminal patient is someone who has a diesase that is going to kill her - that is, apart for the need of food, which everybody has. Anyone can see the absurdity of this. I had no idea that everytime I wake up in the morning and have breakfast, I’m taking life-saving drugs! It seems I have this deadly disease called life. I’ll ask my doctor a prescription for spaghetti.
And where’s Eluana’s own will in all this? How was her wish to die determined? Not only there isn’t any written statement by Eluana concerning euthanasia, but the Court’s sentence was based on a “reconstruction” of what Eluana’s would have wanted in such a case, based on superficial considerations such as infering Eluana’s desires from her “lifestyle”. How can you not find these methods incredibly creepy? Besides, it was an one-sided trial. On one side there was Beppino Englaro coming up with evidence benefiting his thesis, and on the other side, there was no motivated counterpart. They chose the letters that made it seem that Eluana disliked Catholics (such as the vague statement that she didn’t find herself at ease at Catholic school), but from other letters we find evidence of the opposite, such dramatic statements of love for the nuns, and those inconvenient letters weren’t used in the trial at all. And in any case, it was all incredibly vague and arbitrary. With those methods you could attribute pro-euthanasia opinions to anyone, really.
You know what is that I find disgraceful and grotesque? The Italian right to die movement claims that someone’s will to die must be certified. On written paper. Davanti al notaio. After consulting a doctor. They pretend to care very much about these technicalities. And then they all support the killing of a woman whose will was “recnostructed” with those preposterous methods. This, not Mrs Lario’s abortion, is hypocrital.
I don’t expect concern with principles of personal choice from the Partito Democratico since two thirds of it are people who used to support the Soviet Union, but the Radicali, who were once true leftist libertarians, now are the biggest supporters of this judicial abuse of a woman’s personal freedom. Where is the principled Left? Where are the feminists who used to care about a woman’s own will? How can I not support the right-wing in this situation?
“Mr Berlusconi also referred to Beppino Englaro as to a man tying to get rid of a dead-weight. He said that nuns were the only ones responsible for the care of Ms Englaro and the father never did anything. Since I have been following this case for at least 8 years, I am not even able to comment on this disgraceful statement.”
You talk like you have a deep understanding of Mr Englaro’s motives. Well then enlighten me. What on earth made him inflict so much sufference on his daughter and all the people who loved her? Either Eluana was still able to suffer, in which case, how can a loving father wish something as painful as starvation and dehidratation for his daughter? Does he hate her? Or, he was convinced that she couldn’t suffer at all, in which case what’s the point with killing her if there’s no sufference to put an end to? Why inflict this tragedy on all the people who loved her, such as the nuns who cared for her day by day so sweetly and attentively? I think a lot about this and i can’t find an answer. I can only come to the conclusion that the man is a soulless robot, who isn’t able to understand the pain he is inflicting. As you can see my assessment of Beppino Englaro is even worse than Berlusconi’s. If you can give me different answers, please do so.
I’m sorry for putting so much emotion in all this. I can’t help it.
Comment by Caballaria — Thursday, February 12, 2009 @ 06:23
Also, unless you show me a detailed source I suspect that the figure of 30 kg refers to Eluana after the starvation, not before. People in a vegetative state usually don’t look like concentration camp victims, but starved and dehidratated people do - which is also how Terry Schiavo looked according to her father, after being starved, not before.
Comment by Caballaria — Thursday, February 12, 2009 @ 06:41
The figure (for sake of accuracy, under 40 kg) was reported by those who had the chance to see Ms Englaro more or less recently, before the interruption of the nutrition.
Mr Tondo -the Governon of Friuli, elected within Mr Berlusconi’s coalition, FI precisely- after visiting Ms Englaro expressed his support for the family and reported the PM that the the young woman was “unrecognizable”
Many voices, within the Catholic Church as well, state that the interruption of nutrition to someone that is not able to feed him/herself is not euthanasia. It is to suspend an inappropriate overtreatment. Monsignor Giuseppe Casale even claimed that this case is just in line with the last will of Papa Giovanni Palo II (that explicitly asked not to be kept in life artificially when not able to breath/feed himself anymore).
Above all this, no moral/religious authority is able to define once and for all what the dignity of life is or when/where it ends. It is a matter of personal ethics. This is the field of the current battle: that both you and me have the same right to decide on our own life. I respect your position. I defend your position. But I don’t want to be forced to conform to it.
Is it so unconceivable for you that a family struggles against what they believe an undignified condition, one which death is preferable to? For me, it isn’t. I hope my father would have done just the same for me.
Comment by Marta — Thursday, February 12, 2009 @ 18:01
“Monsignor Giuseppe Casale even claimed that this case is just in line with the last will of Pope John Paul II (that explicitly asked not to be kept in life artificially when not able to breath/feed himself anymore).”
First, Eluana was perfectly able to breathe and digest food with her own lungs and her own digestive system; second, is anybody here a Catholic? I’m not one. So nobody here gives a special role to the opinions of the former Pope. Much less those of Giuseppe Casale (who?) or those of Governor Tondo.
Instead of quoting supposed figures of authority (and in any case most Catholics disagree with Casale), please explain yourself how giving someone water is “treatment”, let alone “overtreatment”.
“It is a matter of personal ethics. This is the field of the current battle: that both you and me have the same right to decide on our own life.”
Again and again, Italian right-to-die supporters speak as if Eluana Englaro had taken this decision herself. I’m tired of this. I ask you this precise question: how can you claim you’re defending someone’s freedom to choose when that particular person never had a word in this decision?
If someone here is imposing his own ethics on someone else, it’s Beppino Englaro who’s imposing his own ethics on Eluana.
Comment by Caballaria — Thursday, February 12, 2009 @ 22:29
Caballaria, Thanks for your well-informed and thought out replies on this matter. I’m glad to see that for once a picture of Italy is being painted by someone who knows us first hand. (I’m no particular fan of Berlusconi, but it’s beyond me how people can believe that millions of Italian voters would be so gullible as to elect such a corrupt caricatural wheeler-dealer as the press makes out of him.)
Two remarks:
1) As to Eluana’s physical condition: it was her own doctor, Carlo Alberto Defanti, who no earlier than February 9th had stated that she was in ‘excellent’ condition (in Italian: «al di là della lesione cerebrale è una donna sana, mai una malattia, mai un antibiotico, probabilmente resisterà più a lungo della media»). Grazia Maria Mottola of the Corriere della Sera, who saw Eluana several times in her room in Lecco, then again in Udine, has written at length these days that she still had the same beautiful features as before. When in Lecco, it was not only the sisters who took care of her, but there were also four physiotherapists who took turns every day to help Eluana keep a healthy skin and body. The 35kg figure was her official body weight at death, after four days of starvation and massive sedation.
2)John Paul II said “let me go”, and was against undue therapy (as per Catholic doctrine, btw), but he never said he wanted to be left unfed.
Comment by another Italian woman — Thursday, February 12, 2009 @ 22:31
To Caballria
I’m not a Catholic either. That was just to say that in Italy the opinions on the issue “euthanasia vs. overtreatment” are particularly diverse and numerous. I thought it was clear.
Beppino Englaro could have had “imposed his own ethics” on his daughter years and years ago, as many many families decide to do within a hospital room, privately. You know, just a little nod of the head, just a doctor as many others (not a “pro-death”, funny definition). It’s not easy, but it happens everyday.
Why, instead, this father decides to fight a public battle over the daughter’s body? You are free to think whatever you like.
I think this father had done everything just to respect what he knew would have been Ms Englaro adamant will and belief. This paying a quite high price.
But, again, you are obviously free to think he was just a compulsive liar.
P.S. Again, the will of Ms Englaro has been determined by Italian courts at every judicial level, and confirmed by the highest court of the country. And not in a week or two. And not as a case of euthanasia.
You don’t agree about the definition? Then let’s vote a law in the chambers, that will eventually establish what is euthanasia and what is not, within our legal system. Then we’ll all feel better guaranteed.
And guess what? This is just what Beppino Englaro is trying to obtain.
Comment by Marta — Thursday, February 12, 2009 @ 23:29
I disagree with this blind judge-worship. Only because something has been decided by a court doesn’t make it right. I already talked a little about how Eluana’s will was “determined”.
Indeed, diverse opinion about the euthanasia vs overtreatment issue. Among those who described this as euthanasia was judge Dario Simeoli, who wrote an article praising the Court of Cassation’s sentence on Eluana Englaro as a great way to introduce euthanasia to Italy. Then he went on to issue a sentence from the desk of Lombardy’s Tar court, which ordered Formigoni to provide a clinic for the death of Eluana. Thus he violated a principle that a judge shouldn’t make political statements on the same issues he’s supposed to judge about. I think this says a lot about the pro-euthanasia political agenda of these supposedly impartial judges.
As for Beppino Englaro, he didn’t “pay a quite high price” - quite the contrary.
Comment by Caballaria — Friday, February 13, 2009 @ 01:00
Marta: how is it that suddenly everyone is taking it for granted that “many many families” have their relatives starved to death as a matter of course? I don’t believe this and it can’t be proved.
As to the legal aspect: apart from the fact that a relative of Salvatore Crisafulli, someone who unexpecetedly snapped out of his coma after years of “persistent vegetative condition”, came forward a couple of weeks ago to say that Beppino Englaro had admitted to him in 2003 that he had made everything us, i.e. that his daughter never had said all those things about wanting to die rather than …etc etc;
the fact is that magistrates are only human. One of the items considered “proof” of her will to die was her alleged shock at seeing the coma of a famous skier, Leonardo David, whom she had met. Well, you know when Leonardo David died? In 1979, when Eluana was NINE years old.
Comment by another Italian woman — Friday, February 13, 2009 @ 01:07
Sorry, there is a typo in my last message. I wrote “He had made everything us”, which makes no sense. What I meant to type was “He had made everything up”
Comment by another Italian woman — Friday, February 13, 2009 @ 01:10
The way you mentioned Pietro Crisafulli makes it seem as if he was a random guy who showed up. It’s important to say that he was a good friend with Beppino Englaro, that there are photos of the two smiling together.
I don’t like all this reasoning based on this guy said this, that other guy said that. It’s a bit tasteless. But this is how this court decision was made. It was based entirely on people testifying, without any hard proof, So here’s another witness who could have testified against mr Englaro, if there had been a fair trial.
Comment by Caballaria — Friday, February 13, 2009 @ 02:13
As I re-read what I wrote I see what you mean, I guess it comes of trying to say so many things in one sentence. I didn’t mean to undermine Pietro Crisafulli’s credibility, quite the contrary.
In any case, anticipations this morning about the outcome of the autopsy have it that Eluana actually weighed 52 kilos, which is more like it.
Comment by another Italian woman — Friday, February 13, 2009 @ 18:00
BTW, Felicia, where did you get that part that says the Vatican “magnanimously announced that God will forgive Mr Englaro”? They did nothing of the sort, neither the Pope nor his spokesperson.
Comment by another Italian woman — Friday, February 13, 2009 @ 19:07
Persistent vegetative state and permanent vegetative state are two different things.
Mr Crisafulli, as far as I know from the newspapers, can’t be defined “a good friend of Mr Englaro”. What I’ve read is that they met several times, because of their “common condition”. In the interviews I read, Mr Crisafulli declared “We met more than once, I have the pictures that can prove this”. In my personal opinion, this is not the comment of a good friend. As far as I know, after the accusation was made, Mr Englaro did not even take replied to them and they never met again.
But we monopolized this blog and apparently we are the only ones still interested in this matter. So, since the aim of a blog should be discussion with a plurality of people and I have no interest at all in trying to convince you (which I am sure is not possible, and I say so in the most respectful way), I will stop writing.
Best regards.
Comment by Marta — Friday, February 13, 2009 @ 21:36
With reference to your last entry, I’d like to point out that the fact that Mr Englaro did not take the time to deny Mr Crisafulli’s statements certainly doesn’t make one lean towards Englaro’s version of the story. On the other hand, it is not in his interest to call attention to Mr Crisafulli’s words by denying them!
But I agree that we are probably the only ones still interested in this matter on this blog, because by now all this must be incomprehensible to the British. Yet the Englaro case is intended - by the “Transnational radicals” who are the real driving force behind it - to help spread the legalization of euthanasia all over the world, so the information we are sharing now may someday soon come in handy.
Best wishes.
Comment by another Italian woman — Tuesday, February 17, 2009 @ 17:26
To “another Italian woman”, post 40 : Leonardo David had his accident in 1979 (March 3rd, Lake Placid), but died February 26th, 1985. Eluana was then 15 years old.
Comment by Fabio — Thursday, February 19, 2009 @ 17:10
I have worked for 20 years for people with disabilities-primarily mental retardation. Some who cant walk,speak, feed themselves (and who have had feeding tubes), clothe themselves, and who require machines to stay alive or function. They bring so much quality to other’s lives, and when loved themselves, laughed, and enjoyed life. A friend just told me about one who could only communicate with his eyes. He was left in a crib in an institution for 10 years until someone talked to him and noticed he could communicate by blinking. I saw the tragic photo. Then i saw a photo taken of him as an adult surrounded by children with a big smile on his face. One I know does not appear to repsond to others but laughs and smiles and seems to appreciate life.Eluana was disabled just like them except with a different condition. Eluana was a living woman who had a condition. Her life had value, and no one had the right to take it from her. Felicia I am glad I am not your friend because God forbid I end up like Eluana you would have my food and water taken away. Eluana did not have a terminal condition and was not dying.
Comment by kris — Saturday, March 14, 2009 @ 10:30
The whole story is very sad. Emotionally thinking, I believe that they killed her. If I think rationally, I still feel disappointed that they had the right to do that. None of the arguments that are pro euthanasia, convince me, unless perhaps if the person really wishes to die. Still I don’t see why others would be allowed to put someone else to death. If she could talk, it’s very possible that she wouldn’t want to die, who knows. I also disagree with abortions.
Comment by Guest — Thursday, April 30, 2009 @ 23:30
Hi. In the future I’m going to keep here links to their sites. But I do not worry about the sites where my link is removed. So if you do not want to see a mountain of links, simply delete this message. After 2 weeks, I will come back and check.
Comment by Thomas — Monday, May 11, 2009 @ 21:24
Hello everyone. Anything looked at closely becomes wonderful.
I am from Malawi and learning to read in English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Buy synthroid with confidence from an accredited online pharmacy and save! Place an order through a simple totally secure online ordering system or.”
Waiting for a reply
, Grimshaw.
Comment by Grimshaw — Friday, May 15, 2009 @ 13:46