No end-of-life law can be written without having a shaky hand.
This subject refers us both to the intimate part of each, to the highest degree of individual freedom, as well as to the transgression of an original prohibition that is still in force: "Thou shalt not kill."
It is not the time to know what the national representation should or should not vote for, but to hold a discourse on the method allowing a real ethics of discussion.
No consensual decision can emerge if the debate that precedes it is not of the highest standard: the quality of this debate is as important as its conclusion, of which it will be the moral guarantee.
We must look at where we are starting from and, collectively, bring about a dignified debate, where emotion and reason do not oppose each other, but respond and complement each other.
Let's all take the time to appeal to reason as well as emotion, and to be open to various arguments and stories.
Astrid Panosyan-Bouvet
Three questions arise for us: has everything been done to ensure that the provisions of the existing law are applied to everyone?
Are there carnal realities…
This article is for subscribers only.
You have 85% left to discover.
Freedom is also to go to the end of a debate.
Keep reading your article for €0.99 for the first month
I ENJOY IT
Already subscribed?
Login