At world level a great mess has loosened for an article in a medical publication. The authors are the professors Alberto Giubilini, doctor in Philosophy and Bioethics in the University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, grants a doctorate in Philosophy of the University of Bologna. This articulates it has been published in the 'Journal of Medical Ethics' that is published by English ONG Institute of Medical Ethics (IME), February 22; with I title “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”. They defend, these two professors that a fetus and a newly born one are two "morally equivalent" beings, since possess the potential of being people. Therefore. If the abortion of a fetus is consented, because it is been worth to make infanticide. Have or non problems the newly born one.
In this I articulate, they, recognize that if they want to come undone of this human potential, the best thing to miscarry.
With this article, it doesn't miss me that the joint author, Minerva, have said to the newspaper 'Daily Mail' that since 'she saw the light' this article has been the worst days in its life.
And the editor of this magazine where it was published, Julian Savulesco, he has had to make the corresponding explanation: "the novelty doesn't reside in the defense of the infanticide, since this throughout the history." "This in the application in favor of the maternal and family interests.”
What I don't understand as this editor or the authors dare to defend, with arguments or not, the murder.
To secure their writing, they make allusion to the 'Protocol Groningen' that was published in 'The New England Jorunal of Medicine', year 2005; the authors of this I articulate they were, Eduard Verhagen and Pieter Sauer, of the Infantile Clinic of Groningen, Holland. In this protocol they wonder: Should they remain alive the children with an illness associated to the suffering without being able to decrease? They also mentionand their work published in 1985 that it defends this supposition.
The Directress of the Class of Biojuridica and Bioethics of the University Francisco of Victoria, Maria Lacalle Noriega, she has said that this is 'a minority opinion.'
Because she doesn't imagine this teacher, the tranquility that leaves me.
Reading and hearing on this topic, I remembered a sentence of the times of the Nazi that with these positions, it seems current. Adolph Hitler Said in 1939 in Germany: "A Jew, independently of their age, it is clear that he is an alive being; now then, it cannot be affirmed that is a human being, there is not scientific base for it."
Do they mean, these judicious professors that this continues effective?