The existence of a constitutional right, or a freedom, to refuse medical treatments— which corresponds to a duty, or a prohibition, for the doctor to execute or carry on them — is already recognised, and not only in the Italian legal system. However, several uncertainties remain about the abstract extension of this right and the spaces for its concrete actualization. In the abstract, it is not particularly problematic to define the object of the patient’s right to self-determination, that corresponds to any treatment— from a non-therapeutic to a life-saving one—to start (or already in action). Rather, it’s possible to observe problematic profiles about the subjects. For example, it’s discussed the discretion of the agent to refuse treatments in name of the incapable patient or, in the same way, the chance for the doctor to not interrupt personally a refused treatment, maybe delegating it to another colleague. Virtually, the validity of a refusal to treatments may be dubious, above all when it is not present, especially in a legal system, like the Italian one, which still doesn’t regulate the so-called “living will”. Furthermore, it has to be clarified what kind of responsibility could be charged to the doctor who violates the rules on refusal of treatments, and if it could be recognised even as a crime of “mistreatment”; in the same way, it has to be evaluated the workability of the grounds of justification in this sector. The Author offers these and other ideas as an introduction to the forum. He expresses his preference for solutions which are adaptable to the specificities of the real event, without moving from an ex ante assessments and generalizing about the validity or invalidity of dissent in problematic situations.
è ormai acquisita, non solo nell’ordinamento italiano, l’esistenza di un diritto fondamentale, o libertà, di rifiutare le cure, cui si correla un dovere, o divieto, per il medico di attuarle o proseguirle. Diverse incertezze riguardano, invece, vuoi la astratta estensione di quel diritto, vuoi gli spazi per una sua concreta attuazione. In astratto, non appare particolarmente complesso definire l’oggetto dell’autodeterminazione del paziente, corrispondente a qualsiasi trattamento, anche non terapeutico, da iniziare o già in atto, idoneo ad invadere la sfera corporea e privata del malato. Profili problematici si riscontrano, piuttosto, rispetto ai soggetti, essendo ad esempio discussa la facoltà del rappresentante di rifiutare trattamenti in nome del paziente incapace, così come, per altro verso, la possibilità per il medico di non interrompere personalmente un trattamento rifiutato, delegando eventualmente altro collega. In concreto, la validità di un dissenso alle cure può risultare dubbia quand’esso non sia attuale, specialmente in un ordinamento, come quello italiano, che ancora non disciplina le c.d. “direttive anticipate”. V’è poi da chiarire quale responsabilità possa essere addebitata al medico nel caso di violazione delle regole in tema di rifiuto di cure, e se in certi casi possa addirittura riscontrarsi un reato di “maltrattamenti”, così come è da valutare l’operatività delle cause di giustificazione in questo settore. L’autore offre questi ed altri spunti di discussione come introduzione al forum, manifestando una predilezione per soluzioni che, senza muovere da valutazioni aprioristiche e generalizzanti circa la validità o invalidità del dissenso in situazioni problematiche, sappiano adattarsi duttilmente alle specificità della singola vicenda concreta.
Il diritto di rifiutare le cure e i suoi risvolti: spunti per una discussione multidisciplinare
VALLINI, ANTONIO
2014-01-01
Abstract
The existence of a constitutional right, or a freedom, to refuse medical treatments— which corresponds to a duty, or a prohibition, for the doctor to execute or carry on them — is already recognised, and not only in the Italian legal system. However, several uncertainties remain about the abstract extension of this right and the spaces for its concrete actualization. In the abstract, it is not particularly problematic to define the object of the patient’s right to self-determination, that corresponds to any treatment— from a non-therapeutic to a life-saving one—to start (or already in action). Rather, it’s possible to observe problematic profiles about the subjects. For example, it’s discussed the discretion of the agent to refuse treatments in name of the incapable patient or, in the same way, the chance for the doctor to not interrupt personally a refused treatment, maybe delegating it to another colleague. Virtually, the validity of a refusal to treatments may be dubious, above all when it is not present, especially in a legal system, like the Italian one, which still doesn’t regulate the so-called “living will”. Furthermore, it has to be clarified what kind of responsibility could be charged to the doctor who violates the rules on refusal of treatments, and if it could be recognised even as a crime of “mistreatment”; in the same way, it has to be evaluated the workability of the grounds of justification in this sector. The Author offers these and other ideas as an introduction to the forum. He expresses his preference for solutions which are adaptable to the specificities of the real event, without moving from an ex ante assessments and generalizing about the validity or invalidity of dissent in problematic situations.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Vallini Antonio.pdf
solo utenti autorizzati
Descrizione: Estratto contributo definitivo
Tipologia:
Versione finale editoriale
Licenza:
NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione
98.26 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
98.26 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.