Letters to the director’s opinion

Contempt for elders?

The available data show, without ambiguity, that vaccination significantly reduces the possibility of serious illness and death in those infected with SARS-CoV-2. Consequently, vaccination against Covid-19 should be a priority in older people over 80 years of age. Should.

The Order of Doctors sponsors a public petition for the immediate vaccination of all doctors; The fire service representative regards the vaccination of its members as a priority. I regret three doctors died with Covid-19 and I pay tribute to them. Fortunately, I have no news of the death of the fire fighters. All deaths are irreplaceable losses.

The news reports that as of yesterday in Portugal there were 63,764 men and women infected over 80 years of age, of which four thousand four hundred eighty-seven men and five thousand three hundred and seventy women died, a total of nine I repeat, one thousand, eight hundred and fifty seven (9,857) victims of Covid-19, over 80 years old.

Death has lost its social value. The pain caused by the death of a neighbor at this time of the pandemic is watered down by the daily trivialization of the number of more deaths, by the isolation of death in hospital care, anonymous, lonely, separated from those who are close. As the German-Korean philosopher Byung-Chul Han says, “social distance makes the loss of empathy worse,” which leads to the devaluation of death. In addition, death of those over 80 is ignored as if there is no need to go beyond average life expectancy.

Social consideration for the weakest is rare here. Companies whose mission is to save lives, instead of expecting it, are struggling to protect themselves from the, albeit minimal, risk of dying with the Covid-19 by publicly offering the right, the privilege and the priority of their members to avail vaccination. Contempt for elders? Or just primary egoism?

Jorge Torgal, doctor

opinion

On the 6th, I read the Provedor José Manuel Barata Feyo column with interest.

Opinion articles, whether by party politicians, by regular or occasional commentators, are important because they represent different views. I don’t mind politicians as long as they are clearly identified, but in an opinion article, the position of the author is more important than the position / defense of the party. Resident commentators have exaggerated opinions when they repeat themselves. The most important thing for everyone is choosing the true arguments.

On the same day [ontem] An opinion on euthanasia appears in the newspaper. The central argument is against the approval of euthanasia in parliament during a pandemic. Wrong argument, it is not the pandemic that makes euthanasia more or less acceptable. The author, a full professor of ethics, uses the pandemic as an argument to explicitly attack PS, BE and “invention”. Where is the ethics?

Jean Pierre Catry

Pacheco Pereira: two errors in two lines

José Pacheco Pereira wrote in “Do not let the current“ liberals ”adopt the word“ freedom ”(Público, 02/06/2021) that the“ PAN is based on an animal ontology of society that devalues ​​freedom because it devalues ​​people . In fact, “humans”, “animals” and “nature” are not on the same level for liberals because they are not ontologically identical. “The philosophical jargon masks a certain superficiality. And two mistakes. The first is that of the false dilemma: for JPP we have to choose between a model of human freedom and another model that protects animals or nature. Or one or the other. Appreciating animals and nature would inevitably lead to human and freedom being devalued because either humans or animals and nature are valued … This false dichotomy seems to be reminiscent of a simplistic intellectual wave that sought a single principle, all of that explained and justified.

The second fallacy is that of the scarecrow (straw man falsehood): JPP alters, distorts and impoverishes the argument of those who do not agree to overcome and discredit it. It’s not pretty, but it’s common. Nobody understands that they and humans are “ontologically identical” and that animals (and nature) should benefit from freedom of expression, privacy, private property, possibly citizen participation, education and others. The debate over the protection of animals essentially revolves around their physical and emotional well-being in the context of a human race that claims to be the sole holder of interests that deserve protection and the uncritically industrialized abuse, torture and avoidable death or unjustified living beings . conscious and refined beings. As for equality between man and nature, JPP will have fallen victim to an “ontological” diversion … The complexity of the subject does not fit into these last lines, the superficiality of JPP’s words fell and fell in a few carelessness lines.

Jorge Menezes