Le Webzine Slate publie un texte défendant la position du Congrès américain dans l'affaire Schiavo.
Non seulement ce texte n'est pas écrit par un catho d'extrême-droite (l'auteure est une militante qui défend les droits des personnes handicapées), mais il avance des arguments très intéressants, qui méritent d'être entendus et débattus.
L'auteure défend le Congrès (qui était CONTRE le débranchement) non sur des bases morales, mais légales.
Lisez-le et dites-moi ce que vous en pensez.
____________
Extraits du texte:
"There is a genuine dispute as to Ms. Schiavo's awareness and consciousness. But if we assume that those who would authorize her death are correct, Ms. Schiavo is completely unaware of her situation and therefore incapable of suffering physically or emotionally. Her death thus can't be justified for relieving her suffering.
This is not a case about a patient's right to refuse treatment. I don't see eating and drinking as "treatment," but even if they are, everyone agrees that Ms. Schiavo is presently incapable of articulating a decision to refuse treatment. The question is who should make the decision for her, and whether that substitute decision-maker should be authorized to kill her by starvation and dehydration.