For some, this man is an example of human indignity.
For others, it's a hymn to life.
For others, it's a hymn to life.
“Cases of Life” was a set of films shown by TVI, Portugal, in 2010 in which
real cases were dramatized. As it has been eight years and the production of
new series is expensive, this channel does like the others and is repeating the
series. I realized, when, in laborious zapping, I caught one of those episodes.
The request.
It is a young married man who is the victim of a motorcycle accident and is quadriplegic. The drama of not accepting the situation and the anxious search for death is the backbone of the film that ends with the conclusion that euthanasia is not a crime but an act of love. It is the wife herself who cuts off oxygen, bringing about the end of suffering and death. The friend who shows opposition to the homicide is presented to viewers as alienated and silly.
Dramatic tension is always centered on the appeal to fallacious sentimentality, and the discussion on the proposed theme, euthanasia, amounts to a sequence of factual and scientific lies. The dialectic between the option for death as a means of escape from suffering and life with its meanders and precariousness was replaced by a rhetoric between living as the owner of Life or not living at all.
The real important thing in life was hidden or ignored: happiness.
Some minds are not able to understand the happiness and joy and even the personal fulfillment of a tetraplegic person or with other constraints. Those are minds with short horizons and little cultivation.
It is a young married man who is the victim of a motorcycle accident and is quadriplegic. The drama of not accepting the situation and the anxious search for death is the backbone of the film that ends with the conclusion that euthanasia is not a crime but an act of love. It is the wife herself who cuts off oxygen, bringing about the end of suffering and death. The friend who shows opposition to the homicide is presented to viewers as alienated and silly.
Dramatic tension is always centered on the appeal to fallacious sentimentality, and the discussion on the proposed theme, euthanasia, amounts to a sequence of factual and scientific lies. The dialectic between the option for death as a means of escape from suffering and life with its meanders and precariousness was replaced by a rhetoric between living as the owner of Life or not living at all.
The real important thing in life was hidden or ignored: happiness.
Some minds are not able to understand the happiness and joy and even the personal fulfillment of a tetraplegic person or with other constraints. Those are minds with short horizons and little cultivation.
Really bad is the falsification of scientific data presented in the film,
the malicious puffs that are made to convince people by deceiving them.
For the film's authors and proponents of euthanasia, scientist Stephen Hawking, who was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in 1963, when he was 21, had the right and duty to opt for euthanasia. Instead, Hawking worked as a scientist and teacher, limited by his illness, his inability to move, speak, communicate with the world almost only through electronic devices adapted to his person and acquired the distinction of being considered one of the most important scientists of our time, perhaps the greater brain.
Those who are curious to see the film can be found in the TV boxes and, I think also, on the TVI website, note that most of the data on the clinical course of the patient and the supposedly scientific and clinical data are false.
It is therefore understood that it is on the basis of lies and ignorance of the people on many subjects that the campaign for liberalization and incitement to euthanasia is being made. True advocates, the mentors of this campaign, just want to patent an easy way to avoid locking old people up in hospitals with fake diseases in nursing homes and even others with special needs (often just needing attention) including children. The State also saves a lot of money because it is cheaper to kill the old and the sick than to care for them.
The euthanasia they propose is a shameful lie.
For the film's authors and proponents of euthanasia, scientist Stephen Hawking, who was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in 1963, when he was 21, had the right and duty to opt for euthanasia. Instead, Hawking worked as a scientist and teacher, limited by his illness, his inability to move, speak, communicate with the world almost only through electronic devices adapted to his person and acquired the distinction of being considered one of the most important scientists of our time, perhaps the greater brain.
Those who are curious to see the film can be found in the TV boxes and, I think also, on the TVI website, note that most of the data on the clinical course of the patient and the supposedly scientific and clinical data are false.
It is therefore understood that it is on the basis of lies and ignorance of the people on many subjects that the campaign for liberalization and incitement to euthanasia is being made. True advocates, the mentors of this campaign, just want to patent an easy way to avoid locking old people up in hospitals with fake diseases in nursing homes and even others with special needs (often just needing attention) including children. The State also saves a lot of money because it is cheaper to kill the old and the sick than to care for them.
The euthanasia they propose is a shameful lie.
Orlando de Carvalho
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário