Accustomed as we are, to read in the newspapers or see worse on television news and images, often gruesome and unnecessary violent deaths of men at the hands of other men, it seems that without one or more deaths, no corpses in plain sight, for the macabre enjoyment of the spectators, the news is not news, is not worthy of being published and disseminated. For this reason I was today, very impressed, I'd say impressed by the emphasis that some newspapers, including the ones I read, have an event ended without casualties, without bloodshed, but that makes us think that almost forces us to reflect and take a stand as human beings belonging to this community, forces us to put our conscience and to propose a question, a question of a doubt, that only in our hearts and in solitude with ourselves, we can try to solve.
The fact is recent, but does not belong to our country, so unfortunately accustomed to medical malpractice who see doctors for suspected non-compliance, for incompetence, for fatal carelessness towards the poor patients, but occurred in Germany, Padenborn a city of the western region of North Rhine-Westphalia.
a hospital patient, a man of 36 years had already been anesthetized. But when the surgeon was preparing to perform the surgery has seen the tattoo emblazoned on the biceps (the classic eagle sitting on a swastika symbol of Nazism) was pulled back. Literally. He took off the mask from his face, he stripped the green gown and left the operating room, praying another surgeon present for him to operate the patient.
Outside, in a waiting room sat the wife of the patient. The quarantaseienne surgeon turned directly with a few, but unequivocal words : "I did not draw her husband, lady, I can not, because they are jew, my conscience will not let me .." The other surgeon has taken its place, the operation was performed with a happy outcome, the patient is doing well.
followed the article in the newspaper comment of a journalist, I always read that, I respect and admire you for your courage and your clarity, Fiamma Nirenstein, are obvious, such as revealing his name, Jewish origins.
journalist, while I understand the reasons for the surgeon and catching them in extenuating circumstances, it stigmatizes the work entitled to comment the article "made a mistake by a physician and jew. Saving lives comes first" synthesizing with these words His mind then widely expressed.
As a physician, instinctively and without thinking, I was initially supportive of the thoughts of the journalist, as clearly and logically expressed, considering that my jew-German colleague had failed to doctors and for us is sacred and inviolable, the Oath of Hippocrates that obliges us to provide our care to those in need of our work, regardless of any other evaluation of a personal nature, whatever it is, no ifs, ands or buts.
E 'extreme and obvious, for example, the case where a doctor is forced into war to carry out his work of aid against enemies or friends, if they are in case of need.
Equally imperative is the imperative for every physician to render assistance immediately and spontaneously to those who need it and was in danger. Still remaining
this inalienable and indisputable principle, however, reflecting calmly and freeing time and emotion from the immediate reading of the story has provoked in me, I was forced to revise my position completely reversing my deduction.
First, in this case was not depicted the situation of extreme urgency and emergency and a state of necessity, being the patient in the hospital and above all there was a different surgeon can take the place of the doctor who gave up to work and then to take patient care.
Very different would be the case in which the surgeon jew was the only one capable of working, or the only doctor present and available, taking shape in such a hypothetical situation a state of absolute necessity, that absolutely would not allow the doctor to escape their duty.
But the explanation of the work of the surgeon, who refused to work is all in his own words, in the few lapidary words he addressed to the wife of his patient: "I did not draw a her husband, lady, I can not, because are jew, my conscience will not let me. "
Attention, the doctor said "I do not want " but said " I can not " and added" my conscience will not let me. " What conscience? a jew? a doctor or do both?
The key to understanding the work of the doctor is all that his " I can not ".
Every doctor knows this and must always remember that when it is not in a condition of absolute necessity, as I stated earlier, if his condition is psychological and physical, that are not likely to offer the patient the best of himself or his abilities and skills are not likely to make him feel adequate to the task, must waives his profession to the patient.
In this particular case it was not course of professional skills, being a doctor, a surgeon ready to operate, but rather a psychological and emotional situation, which has been created at the time of observation, the jew doctor, his patient to be a neo-Nazi.
I can easily imagine how the doctor could not have felt quite free and free of emotion and mood disturbances, feelings understandable and easy to imagine that they could make, according to his conscience, not shiny and perfectly suitable for a delicate task which preparing and realizing this, right and proper, has decided not to work, assigning the patient to another surgeon.
Ben would have been different if he had been the only surgeon in order to operate.
In such circumstances the doctor, with all its troubles, was forced from his duty, to operate.
upsetting circumstances is the same reason why most doctors refuse to give up or take care of their families, just because they do not feel free from emotional involvement with them, that make them shiny and obiettvi in \u200b\u200bdiagnosis and therapy possible.
I realize that all these may, or may seem academic discourse and perhaps unnecessary, since then everything has been resolved positively. Maybe I am, so maybe think those who had the patience to read this far, but not for me, and especially for me man physician, which are a necessity, a cause for reflection, analysis, and of course also of self-criticism, self-censorship.
But one last thought comes to me from the episode and is in addition to the many findings, the topic given to me several times, the personal and professional experience.
often and it happened to me, as I said in this last occasion, we express opinions and evaluations in the wake of emotions and passions, emotional moods, and judgments that need not stop there, but absolutely under assessment and the critique of our reason, which unfortunately often leads to conclusions diametrically opposed to the first formula, creating within us a conflict difficult to resolve between feeling and reason. But
feeling and reason are really two aspects of our psyche, one against the other armies? E 'within us that can never develop a daily struggle between the two? Or is it not true that both the two functions are necessary for our existence and strive with things, but above all different times, to lead us to an opinion on the reality that surrounds us?
The feeling in fact, broadly construed, leads us to conclusions quickly, but necessarily imprecise.
The reason for the slower, allows us to make judgments later, but certainly more accurate and detailed '. One has
then the speed advantage in the conclusions, the other for greater accuracy. Perhaps if we were able to use both tools, achieve better results.
I would like to conclude on this subject, with the words of a great psychiatrist of the early years of last century, Kurt Schneider, who I consider my teacher, although he died when I was just born, but having studied and understood all hope His books include:
"A man who was just feeling, it would still be a man. A man who was just reason, is no longer a man."
Thanks for letting me read to date.
Domenico Mazzullo
d.mazzullo @ tiscali.it
www.studiomazzullo.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment