Difference Between Biking And Skating Helmets

Avvenire.it, March 8, 2011 - THE LAWYER - Mangiameli: "In the Constitution there is no right to self-determination" of Henry Negrotti

"Do not there is a right to self-determination in the Constitution to discuss, in particular, Article 32 the rule concerning the protection of health. " Stelio Mangiameli, Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Teramo, has no hesitation in considering the constitutionality of unfounded criticisms that are made against the draft law on advance directives for treatment that began yesterday in the House to examine.

The ruling on the constitutionality of Article 32 referenced above. It is founded?

In fact, the Constitution, providing for freedom, discipline spaces in which the subject can be determined, but there is a right to self at the end of life is quite questionable. The second paragraph of Article 32 does not lead to freedom or any right of the individual, but he founded a limit to the legislature. The article can not mean that there is a right not to care. But there is another important aspect.

What?

The first paragraph of Article states that health is "fundamental rights of the individual," but also "a collective interest." Only at this point in the entire Constitution, there is this reference: Therefore, there is a collective projection permanent law health. Otherwise why should there be an obligation to heal the sick? There is the interest of the community towards the health of every individual and there can be no right to health.

Self-determination does not apply in health?

constitutional law is the protection of health and does not come up to accept the choice of do not care. Otherwise, not only ignores the essential content of constitutional law, but also the projection of collective character of this law. And turn the limit to provide compulsory treatment only according to a law into a right to self-determination is an error of constitutional interpretation, as the self-determination as a right to refuse treatment, is not included in Article 32. Refuse treatment, again, is a de facto situation, not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

So which is expected to limit the action of the doctor?

The purpose of the action of the doctor, the result of the relationship with the patient, is the recovery of health status, within a relationship of trust with the patient. When according to his knowledge, this is not possible, should not impose therapies that do not have the objective of recovery of physical and become abnormal. Ie it must refrain dall'accanimento therapeutic aim for another, for example palliative care. But giving up food and hydrate the patient, by itself, would be an advantage to euthanasia.