Since 1993 English legislation has recognized the invalid’s right to refuse food, water and medical treatment and be allowed to die. The law in question is clearly permissive in its attitude to euthanasia: it does not impose euthanasia, but nor does it punish it. We find ourselves faced by a dramatic situation that appeals to society, to the medical profession, and to parents. Moreover, the case of the tetraplegic patient is in fact, according to the Charter of Health Workers (no. 121), published in 1995, an act of euthanasia and not of therapeutic persistence. Nor can the fact be ignored that the field of palliative treatment is undergoing considerable development at the present time; it permits the patient to conduct his/her own suffering with dignity. John Paul II recalled this a few days ago, in speaking to the delegation of the Italian League for the campaign against tumors: “You devote yourself to the study of the therapy of pain. This is a field of research of particular actuality in our time, because by improving the quality of life of those inflicted by disease, you give them the chance to be validly alleviated and supported” (Address of 25/02/02). Apart from these ethical considerations, one cannot but remark with regret, in this case, the role assumed in hospital treatment by the civil Authority, which has defined the medical effort as a mere form of benevolent paternalism. What is striking here is the fact that medical ethics, in this case the Hippocratic medical ethics of the Western world, are now subject to a judge who comes from outside and who may legally oblige a physician not to perform an act still considered necessary in that particular case. Marco Doldi – theologian
