(Paolo Sarti)
October 6, 2009: Florence City Council approved the establishment of the register of living wills with 26 votes in favor and 18 against, among those Against all opposition center-right and three members of the Democratic Party.
The City Council of Florence has just said yes to the establishment of a "register" declarations of end of life (as did the Tuscan town of Calenzano and Pisa, where, however, the package includes a repository of wills).
Florence does not create a public archive the last wishes of care in cases of serious illness, but simply a list of residents who have already deposited with a notary or other fiduciary their living wills and decide freely whether to give its report to the City.
A list short, "which took place in preparation of living wills" - reads the resolution as approved - which guarantees the certainty of the date of filing and the source of origin. The register is public domain, rather it will be accessible to doctors who want to know if their client, in the absence of communication or information from the family, has or has not filed a "forward declaration of will" to consult.
It 'important to remember that it is not mandatory as a "living will be much less required to inform you that it was done by subscribing to this register for the district.
In other words, those who want to make a living will is free to do so and will give notice to the municipality of residence because they need to be consulted at his will, on the date which will guarantee the veracity and the municipality itself, without forcing its citizens to address the legal fees of filing.
But then: are the origins of the disturbance of the political opposition, and some advisers PD who abstain or even vote against, and the Church, and after just an hour after the approval begins with the tough stance of the curia of Florence (and Archbishop Giuseppe Betori) note that the record as "an ideological act, unlawful and without legal effect"?
"The city - is written in the note of the archdiocese - is found to be reduced to an ideological tool joints, providing new excuses for division, not respecting the sensitivities of many of its citizens."
What a scandal hits, and the Catholic sensibility: a log of the will of others? Scandalized by the freedom of expression, the choice of a different thought, an atheist and not religious? They want required by law to make believe? If so, we can only rejoice that at last, Florence has built this, however small, an instrument of civilization, which is essential for the affirmation of the principle of secularism.
A "declaration of intent for early medical treatment" (the so-called "living will") is a legal document that allows you to specify in advance the medical treatment they will receive or reject each in the event of mental incapacity, or unconsciousness of other reasons preventing them from communicating directly and consciously with your doctor.
The person who drew them up appoint a trustee to health care that becomes, if the person becomes incapacitated, the party called upon to intervene in the decisions regarding medical treatment themselves.
The right of the Italian citizen to choose on this matter does not exist because, as angry and sarcastic on the pages of his blog on technology don Paolo Pedrini (creator of PRAYBOOK, an application for the sharing of prayer on Facebook), "the Parlamentino of Florence "was allowed to deliberate, but because a rich and authoritative legislation on the states for some time.
Although there is still a specific law in Italy (as is the United States since 1991, and in many European countries), there are rules national and international binding as well as an authoritative case law, which recognize the value of living wills.
Think first Article 32 of the Constitution, which states that "nobody can be forced to a particular health treatment under the provisions of law" and that "the law can in no case violate the limits imposed by respect for the person human. " This constitutional provision for all citizens constitute what lawyers call a "perfect law" means that applications do not need laws to be exercised.
Similarly, Article. 13 of the Constitution states that "personal freedom is inviolable", strengthening the recognition freedom and independence of the individual in his personal choices.
However, the problem arises - as demonstrated by the dramatic story of Eluana - in cases where for various reasons, the patient loses the ability to express their will to refuse certain treatments.
In those cases, however, regard the Charter of Fundamental Rights, under which the free and informed consent of the patient when the doctor is regarded as a fundamental right of citizen rights relating to the integrity of the person (Title 1, Dignity, Art. 3 Right to personal integrity) and the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine Oviedo of 1977, ratified by Law 145/2001, which stipulates in Article. 9 that "the previously expressed wishes about medical intervention by a patient who, at surgery, is unable to express their will, will be taken into consideration."
The new code of medical ethics adopted by the National Federation of Physicians and dentists, in addition, after noting that Article. 16 that "the physician must refrain obstinacy in diagnostic and therapeutic treatments from which we can not wait for a health benefit of the sick ...", art. 35 stipulates that "the physician should not take therapeutic activity without your consent and explicit informed patient ... In any case, in the presence of a documented refusal of a competent person who the physician should desist from acts of healing, there can be no medical treatment against the wishes of the person. "
also art. 38 states that" the physician must follow ... at the freely expressed will of the person to heal. The doctor, if the patient is unable to express their wishes must be taken into account in their choices, as previously indicated by the same in a certain and documented. "
Finally, it is worth mentioning the recent decisions of the Court of n.21748 Cassation, the Court of Appeal of Milan No. 88 of 2008 and 334 of the Constitutional Court of 2008, its just for Englaro. The Court of Cassation, in particular, has attached great importance to the patient's wishes, saying that the legal representative acting in the interest of the incapacitated person and, once satisfied that the condition of vegetative state is irreversible, it must carry out the will could deducted from his personality, his lifestyle, its inclinations, its values \u200b\u200band its ethical beliefs, religious, cultural and philosophical.
I would say that there is sufficient basis in law and in law to inform and shape an ad hoc law also for our country. What is certain is that the City Council of Florence did not no forced or early legislator, has only established a registry for citizens wishing to use it with modesty and respect for the laws and rights.
By now, however, we have the paradox that a large part of Italian citizens and politicians that represent them think that what "I do not want to me" (fear, political thought, religious reasons) will not even need all others. And if they wanted instead, to prevent certain choices are transformed into crime! In short, if this effort continues, I'll find myself not believing in the afterlife for a penalty or policemen in the house?
