Regarding the judgment of the Court of Cagliari on preimplantation diagnosis

The sentence of the judge of Cagliari, which goes along the lines of a legitimization of preimplantation diagnosis, against the original prohibitions of Law 40, must be criticized by those who are aware of what it really entails: in the absence of the possibility of therapeutic intervention, it is reduced to being an instrument of selection that leads to the elimination of human beings at the embryonic stage.

In fact, even in its liberal framework, this approach is eugenic because it denies the right to the protection of life, assistance and care of those who, in prenatal conditions, are affected by pathologies.

Preimplantation diagnosis cannot be justified in the name of love for children because it means arguing that it is better not to be born than to live with a pathology: a logic that in fact is welded with the spread of a mentality that judges people with disabilities only as a burden even in other stages of life. The hostility of the disease is improperly transformed into hostility towards the sick. The question arises as to whether welfare should become an accomplice in this logic.

A judicial sentence endorses a distortion of the meaning of parenthood that is detached from the model of acceptance and responsibility and is transformed into a productive project in which the generation is placed under the banner of a mental reserve: selection, rejection, the choice of the healthy. We must reflect on this. Juridically sacralizing the right to a healthy child is something very different from the desire for health and simply means reconfirming the right of the strongest and adults to the detriment of the weakest.

A wound is also inflicted on medicine, on scientific research, which has its failure in the elimination of the human being suffering from pathology. 

On these topics it is not possible to rely only on the emotivalist model favored by many media: an ethical-political game is being played on birth in Italy that cannot find the short way of often self-referential sentences that with a decision claim to close any broader civil and parliamentary debate.