FERNANDA CÂNCIO

 .

Os médicos loucos do

PSD, Chega e CDS

Três partidos decidiram legislar sobre uma matéria clínica sem ouvir ordens de médicos e psicólogos, ignorando pareceres de especialistas e chegando mesmo a acusar “médicos de assinar de cruz”. Talvez referindo-se ao ex-bastonário ora deputado, que a tudo isto disse nada.

𝑁𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑎-𝑓𝑒𝑖𝑟𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑑𝑎, 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑗𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑚 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑢𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑖𝑢 𝑎𝑜 𝑝𝑢́𝑙𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎, 𝑎𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑖 𝑑𝑎 𝑠𝑢𝑎 𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑎, 𝑎𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑟 𝑚𝑒́𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑑𝑒 “𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑟 𝑑𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑧” 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑖𝑎𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑢𝑚 𝑇𝑖𝑎𝑔𝑜, “𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑡𝜄́𝑐𝑖𝑜”, “𝑡𝑖𝑛ℎ𝑎 𝑖𝑑𝑜 𝑏𝑢𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑟 𝑎̀ 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑡”. 𝑇𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑒́𝑚 𝑎𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑜𝑢 𝑢𝑚 𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑢𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑟 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑎 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑢𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑎 𝑑𝑒 “𝑚𝑢𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑐̧𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑜” (𝑎̀ 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑜 𝑇𝑖𝑎𝑔𝑜 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎 𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑎𝑝𝑜́𝑠 “𝑢𝑚 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜 𝑎𝑏𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎́𝑝𝑖𝑑𝑜”) 𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑠𝑎𝑟 𝑑𝑜 “𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜” 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜 𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑜 𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑧 𝑛𝑜 𝑏𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑜 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜́𝑟𝑖𝑜.

𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑢𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑎, “𝑢𝑚 ℎ𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑚 𝑒́ 𝑢𝑚 ℎ𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑚 𝑒 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑚𝑢𝑙ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑒́ 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑚𝑢𝑙ℎ𝑒𝑟”, “𝑎𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐̧𝑎𝑠 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑜𝑠 𝑠𝑎̃𝑜 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑠 𝑒 𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑠” 𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒́ “𝑝𝑠𝑒𝑢𝑑𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎” 𝑒 “𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑎 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑎”, 𝑛𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙 “𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑢𝑚 𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑜́𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑔𝑎 𝑎𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑔𝑒́𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑒𝑚 𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑜𝑠 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐̧𝑎 𝑠𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑔𝑛𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑔𝑒́𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑜”.

𝐴𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑒́𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎, 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑢 𝑎𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑜 𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑑𝑎 𝑎 𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑑𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑟, 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑟-𝑠𝑒-𝑖𝑎, 𝑠𝑒𝑚 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑟𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑑𝑢́𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑎, 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑖 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑖 𝑓𝑜𝑖 𝑎𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑟, 𝑎𝑙𝑒́𝑚 𝑑𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑐̧𝑎𝑟 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑓𝑎𝑡𝑤𝑎 𝑠𝑜𝑏𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑠 𝑚𝑒́𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑒 𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑜́𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑜𝑠 𝑒𝑚 𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙, 𝑎𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑖𝑟𝑜𝑠 𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎́𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑠 𝑎𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐̧𝑜 𝑑𝑎 𝑡𝑎𝑙 “𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑎 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑎”, 𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 “𝑝𝑠𝑒𝑢𝑑𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎” 𝑎 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑎 𝑜𝑢 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑟𝑢𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑔𝑒́𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑜. 𝑃𝑒𝑙𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑜́ 𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑑𝑒 𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑎 𝑡𝑜𝑑𝑜 𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑎 𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑚𝑎.

𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑎 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜: 𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑚𝑎 𝑒𝑚 𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑎, 𝑑𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑜 𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑔𝑎, 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑒, 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝑃𝑆𝐷, 𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑡𝑜 𝑎̀ 𝑚𝑢𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑐̧𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑒 𝑔𝑒́𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑜 (𝑝𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑣𝑟𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒, 𝑑𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑜, 𝑢𝑠𝑎 𝟻𝟿 𝑣𝑒𝑧𝑒𝑠) 𝑛𝑜 𝑅𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜 𝐶𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑙, 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑑𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑎 𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑢𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑐̧𝑎 𝑠𝑒𝑗𝑎 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑜𝑟 𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑢𝑚 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑜́𝑟𝑖𝑜 𝑐𝑙𝜄́𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑔𝑛𝑜́𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑔𝑒́𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑜.

𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑎-𝑠𝑒, 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒, 𝑑𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜 𝑎̀ 𝑙𝑒𝑖 𝑑𝑒 𝟸𝟶𝟷𝟷, 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎̃𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑜 𝑒𝑥𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑜 𝑆𝑜́𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎 𝑜𝑠 𝑣𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑠 𝑑𝑜 𝑃𝑆𝐷 𝑒 𝐶𝐷𝑆-𝑃𝑃 (𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑢𝑡𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑚 𝑑𝑒 “𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑡𝑎́𝑣𝑒𝑙” 𝑒 “𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎”), 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐̧𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎: 𝑎𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑎 𝑎𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒-𝑠𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎 𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑜𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑒 𝑔𝑒́𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑜 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑎 𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑒́𝑚 𝑠𝑒𝑟 𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑟 𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝟷𝟼 𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑠, 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑑𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒 “𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑟𝜄́𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑠 𝑓𝜄́𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑠 𝑒 𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑜́𝑔𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑑𝑜𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑜𝑠”, 𝑜𝑢 𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑚𝑜 𝑎𝑡𝑒́ 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎 𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 “𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑢𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎 𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑜𝑢 𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑠, 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜, 𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑎𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑛ℎ𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑚𝑒́𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑜, 𝑎 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑑𝑟𝑎̃𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑜 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑜́𝑔𝑖𝑐𝑜.”

𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑠 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑟 𝑞𝑢𝑒, 𝑎𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙, 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑜 𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑔𝑎, 𝑎𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑜 𝑑𝑒 “𝑢𝑚 ℎ𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑚 𝑒́ 𝑢𝑚 ℎ𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑚 𝑒 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑚𝑢𝑙ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑒́ 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑚𝑢𝑙ℎ𝑒𝑟” 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒, 𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒 𝑑𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑔𝑛𝑜́𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑜́𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑜𝑠 𝑒 𝑚𝑒́𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑑𝑎 “𝑝𝑠𝑒𝑢𝑑𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎”, 𝑜𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑔𝑛𝑜́𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑑𝑒 𝑔𝑒́𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑔𝑢𝑒́𝑚 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑎𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑙ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑎̀ 𝑛𝑎𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑐̧𝑎.

𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑠: 𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑜 𝑐𝑢𝑗𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑢 “𝑑𝑒𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑚 𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐̧𝑎𝑠 𝑒𝑚 𝑝𝑎𝑧” 𝑎𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑗𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑠𝜄́𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑚𝑢𝑑𝑎𝑟 𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑒 𝑔𝑒́𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝟷𝟼 𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑚𝑎 “ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑠”. 𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑜̃𝑒-𝑠𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑜 𝑜 𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑔𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑒 𝑎̀𝑠 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐̧𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑑𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑔𝑒́𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑜 𝑠𝑒 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑚 𝑜𝑢 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒, 𝑎𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎́𝑟𝑖𝑜 𝑑𝑎𝑠 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑠 𝑡𝑜𝑑𝑎𝑠, 𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐̧𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑝𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑚 𝑛𝑒𝑚 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑚 𝑠𝑒𝑟 “𝑑𝑒𝑖𝑥𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑠 𝑒𝑚 𝑝𝑎𝑧”.

𝑂 𝐶𝐷𝑆-𝑃𝑃 𝑣𝑎𝑖 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑎 𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑎; 𝑠𝑒, 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑜 𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑔𝑎, 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝜄́𝑏𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑠 ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑒𝑚 𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠 “𝑒𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑟𝑢𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎 𝑜𝑢 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑔𝑒́𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑜” (𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 “𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑜𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑜́𝑔𝑖𝑐𝑜 𝑜𝑢 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑟𝑢𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑑𝑎 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐̧𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑢 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑜 𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑜́𝑔𝑖𝑐𝑜”), 𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑎 “𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑢 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑛𝑐̧𝑎𝑠 𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑙𝑜́𝑔𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑠, 𝑜𝑢 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒́𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑠, 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑛ℎ𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑝𝑎 𝑚𝑒́𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎 𝑒 𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑟.” 𝐴 “𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙” 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒́, 𝑎𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎́𝑟𝑖𝑜 𝑑𝑎 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑔𝑒́𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑜, 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑑𝑎 𝑛𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑚𝑎, 𝑚𝑎𝑠 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑎́ 𝑒𝑚 𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑎 𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑜 𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 “𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑜”.

𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑎́-𝑠𝑒 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑚 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑢𝑚 𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑠𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑥𝑜, 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑎, 𝑛𝑢𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑜/𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝟸𝟸 𝑑𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑐̧𝑜 𝑒 𝑒𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑎𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜, 𝑎 𝑆𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑔𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑃𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑎́𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎: “𝐸𝑛𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑟 𝑜 𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜 𝑎 𝑐𝑢𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑎𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑜𝑠, 𝑎𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑛ℎ𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑒 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑛𝑎 𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎, 𝑛𝑜 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑗𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑠 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠 [𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑔𝑒́𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑜], 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒́𝑚-𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑢 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑏𝑟𝑒-𝑠𝑒 𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑑𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑐̧𝑜̃𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝜄́𝑣𝑒𝑖𝑠 𝑒𝑚 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐̧𝑎𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑜, 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑚 𝑛𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝜄́𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎 𝑢𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒. 𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑓𝑎𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒́ 𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒; 𝑒́ 𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎́𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑒𝑚 𝑠𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑎 𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑜𝑠.”

𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑢𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑜: 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑜𝑠 𝑎𝑢𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑜𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠 𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑚 𝑜𝑠 𝑎𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑜𝑢 — 𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑖, 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑎𝑙𝑒́𝑚 𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑔𝑟𝑢𝑝𝑜𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑜 𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑔𝑎 𝑒 𝐶𝐷𝑆-𝑃𝑃, 𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝑃𝑆𝐷, 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑎́𝑠 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑜̂𝑠, 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑜 𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑖𝑡𝑜, 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑣𝑜𝑡𝑜 — 𝑎𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑜 𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑔𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑎 𝑑𝑒 “𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑐𝜄́𝑝𝑖𝑜 𝑑𝑎 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎”, 𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑜𝑐𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑖𝑏𝑖𝑟 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑠 ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑖𝑠, 𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑏𝑙𝑜𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒, 𝑒𝑚 𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠, 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑠𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎 𝑎 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐̧𝑎𝑠 𝑒 𝑗𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑠 “𝑎𝑚𝑏𝜄́𝑔𝑢𝑜𝑠”. 𝑁𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑠 𝑡𝑟𝑒̂𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑎𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑎 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑟 𝑑𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑜 𝑎, 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑧 𝑎 𝑆𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑔𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑃𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑎́𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎, 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎́-𝑙𝑜𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑜 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑜: 𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑒𝑚 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑟.

𝑀𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒́ 𝑠𝑜́ 𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑥𝑜 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑒𝑙 — 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑎𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒, 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑠𝑒 𝑙𝑒̂ 𝑛𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑚𝑎 𝑑𝑜 𝐶𝐷𝑆-𝑃𝑃, 𝑜 𝑠𝑜𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐̧𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑟𝑢𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑔𝑒́𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑜 — 𝑎 𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑛ℎ𝑎𝑑𝑜.

𝑂𝑠 𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑚𝑜𝑠 𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑢𝑗𝑜 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑒́𝑟𝑖𝑜 𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑜𝑠 𝑡𝑟𝑒̂𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑚 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑔𝑢𝑒́𝑚, 𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑗𝑎, 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑎 𝑚𝑢𝑑𝑎𝑟 𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑢 𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑒 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑑𝑒 𝑔𝑒́𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑜 𝑛𝑜 𝑅𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜 𝐶𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑙; 𝑜𝑠 𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑚𝑜𝑠 𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑢𝑗𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑔𝑛𝑜́𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑟𝑢𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑔𝑒́𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑜, 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑎 𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠, 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑙ℎ𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑠 ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑖𝑠 (𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒, 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑠𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑎, 𝑑𝑎̃𝑜 𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑐̧𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑜 𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑚𝑜 𝑡𝑖𝑝𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑗𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑜 𝑎 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑠 𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠), 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑚 𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑛𝑒𝑚 𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑛𝑎 𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠 𝑒𝑚 𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑎.

𝑁𝑎̃𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑚 𝑠𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑜𝑠, 𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑡𝑟𝑒̂𝑠 𝑔𝑟𝑢𝑝𝑜𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑠, 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑎̀𝑠 𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑀𝑒́𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑒 𝑃𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑜́𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑜𝑠. 𝑇𝑜𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑜𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑚 𝑒𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑎𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜, 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑜𝑠 𝑑𝑎 𝑂𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑚 𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑃𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑜́𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑜𝑠 𝑒 𝑑𝑎 𝑆𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑔𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑆𝑒𝑥𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑎 𝐶𝑙𝜄́𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎, 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑚-𝑛𝑜 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒 — 𝑒, 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑢𝑛𝑎̂𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝑒𝑚 𝑟𝑒𝑗𝑒𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑟, 𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑎́-𝑙𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑚 𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝜄́𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑜, 𝑎𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑠 𝑡𝑟𝑒̂𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠, 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑚 𝑡𝑜𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑠.

𝐸𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎́𝑚𝑜𝑠 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑚, 𝑛𝑎 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑎-𝑓𝑒𝑖𝑟𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑑𝑎, 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑡𝑟𝑒̂𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑚 𝑎𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑜𝑠 𝑣𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑠 𝑑𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑎 𝑜 𝑔𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑜, 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑛𝑜𝑣𝑎 𝑒𝑟𝑎. 𝑈𝑚𝑎 𝑒𝑟𝑎 𝑒𝑚 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑜𝑏𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑒́𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑠 𝑒 𝑎 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑚𝑒́𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑚 𝑑𝑎𝑟 𝑎 𝑚𝜄́𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑎 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎 𝑎𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑚 𝑜𝑠 𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑠; 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑒𝑟𝑎 𝑛𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑎, 𝑑𝑜 𝑝𝑢́𝑙𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑎 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑖𝑎 𝑑𝑎 𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑢́𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎, 𝑑𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑢𝑐𝑎 𝑒 𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑎́𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑡𝑜𝑑𝑎 𝑎 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒 𝑚𝑒́𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎, 𝑠𝑒𝑚 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎 𝑂𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑚 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑎 𝑡𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑎 𝑎𝑡𝑒́ 𝑎𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑔𝑖𝑑𝑜 (𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑚 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑜 𝑒𝑥-𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑎́𝑟𝑖𝑜 𝑒 𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑢𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝑃𝑆𝐷 𝑀𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝐺𝑢𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑎̃𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑎 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑎 ℎ𝑜𝑛𝑟𝑎 𝑑𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑎̃𝑜). 𝑈𝑚𝑎 𝑒𝑟𝑎 𝑛𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑔𝑎 𝑎 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑖𝑎 𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑎, 𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎, 𝑑𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎 𝑎 “𝑚𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐̧𝑎𝑠” 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑎 𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠, 𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑠 𝑓𝑎𝑚𝜄́𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑠, 𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑟, 𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑠, 𝑎 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑒̂𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑚 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑟 𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑜 𝑠𝑜𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜.

𝑈𝑚𝑎 𝑒𝑟𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑎 𝑐𝑖𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎, 𝑑𝑒 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑒́𝑟𝑖𝑜 𝑑𝑎 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑐𝑒𝑔𝑎 𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑎́𝑟𝑖𝑎 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑎. 𝐸 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑜-𝑛𝑜𝑠, 𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒, 𝑎𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎́𝑟𝑖𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝑇𝑖𝑎𝑔𝑜 𝑑𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑢𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑑𝑜 𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑔𝑎, 𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒́ 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜.

` Jornalista

IN "DIÁRIO DE NOTÍCIAS"-24/03/26 .