It is hard to even imagine the deep grief of the parents of little Indi, whose death was decreed by the British courts by stopping the machines that allow her to remain alive. I wonder what is human about this choice, and how it is only imaginable that the decision to stop the beating of a little girl's heart is taken away from those who legitimately have the power, exercising it moreover firmly and compassionately in an endless cry of pain, being delegated to a third party, who has only the merit of being a technician of the laws.
All this, in spite of the fact that a hospital of a different country, of which, moreover, the little girl has, albeit for only a few days, citizenship, recognized by a life-sensitive government, is ready to take her in to offer her every kind of care, taking her away from the blind materialism of a hospital budget that prevails, from the perspective of a blind capitalism, over a person's life. In a society in which by now any claim is transformed into a right, preparing for the exercise of the same every protection, national and international, one deprives the main right, the right to life, of a child, denying her legitimate representatives, the parents, the right to legitimately and dutifully exercise it in her interest.
Indeed, the very idea of hope, of hope for life, is nullified, hope in that saving miracle that sometimes reveals itself in human affairs, inexplicable even to the eyes of doctors. Everything becomes thecnical, beyond compassion and charity, doctors and judges determine what is correct and what is wrong, ultimately establishing what is good for little Indi. The individual finds himself immersed in the solitude that only the life of relationships proper to people guarantees, as the origin of all Community. And then one forgets the right to life, the right to fight for life, which shines through little Indi's eyes, for those who are willing to lose themselves for a moment in that gaze. We are now at the denial of those unwritten but universal norms that are part of the ethical, rational and religious heritage of every person and every Community, those on which civil coexistence itself is based: we are at the denial of natural law, of what "semper aequum et bonum est." A now unstoppable drift that violates the "recta ratio" of which Cicero spoke. A clear separation between Logos and Faith, between that Logos and that faith of which the Pope Emeritus, in the face of an age marked by the constant, seemingly unstoppable loss of values, had forcefully advocated a reconciliation in the year 2006, in Regensburg.
Those who hide behind laws to justify what every individual with a minimum of knowledge of the Right and a minimum of a straigh coscience judges to be an abomination should be reminded how laws are written by men and how they should be characterized by that sense of piety recalled by jurist Piero Calamandrei in his book "Elogio dei Giudici scritto da un Avvocato" (Ponte alle Grazie), a sense of piety that should accompany reason. But this leads again to that binomial Faith and Logos , dear to the Pope Emeritus, as a curb to that sunset of the West of which little Indi is becoming, in spite of herself, a sad icon.
Lawyer based in Florence, expert in civil corporate law and criminal law and contracts. Graduated in Law at the University of Florence.
Italiano 
English
Scrivi un commento