Abstract
The legalization of voluntary assisted dying, or physician-assisted suicide (AS), is gaining momentum as the recognition of a patient’s right to self-determination becomes increasingly integral to medical practice, even in cases involving extreme decisions, such as the cessation of therapy. In Italy, even Law no. 219/2017 already permits to refuse any medical intervention, including life-support treatment (LTS) and with the explicit aim of dying, with no possibility of hindering that choice. Subsequently, two landmark rulings by the Constitutional Court (ordinance no. 207/2018 and judgment no. 242/2019) marked a pivotal moment in legal, bioethical, and clinical discourse, fostering a shift toward a new care paradigm. Nevertheless, these developments remain tentative, reflecting the ongoing legislative gap in this domain. One of the most pressing issues is the restriction of AS to only patients who are dependent on LST thus scotomising a huge base of terminally ill sufferers. Several other significant judicial decisions have also shaped this area, including the Court of Assizes of Massa’s ruling on 27/07/2020, the recent order no. 32/2024 by the GIP of Florence, and the latest Constitutional Court’s 18/07/2024 ruling no. 135, which reaffirmed the previous set-up but also strengthened the validity of the albeit vague, extensive definition of LST formulated in 2020. We also discussed latest opinion of Italian National Committee of Bioethics regarding the definitional boundaries of LST. This article critically examines the concept of LST from clinical, bioethical, and legal perspectives, revealing its inconsistencies as a prerequisite for access to voluntary assistance in dying.
Affiliated Institutions
Related Publications
Judicial Choice and Disparities between Measures of Economic Values
An important idea, which characterizes law in society, is a reluctance to move from the status quo. In general, one can argue that legal institutions and legal doctrine are not ...
Publication Info
- Year
- 2025
- Type
- article
- Volume
- 16
- Citations
- 0
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
Cite This
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.3389/fphar.2025.1520136