Euthanasia: What the Constitutional Court's ruling really established
The sentence
The judges then admitted that, if such devices could actually be found, the patient "would have the right to avail of them".
On July 8, the issue of euthanasia reached the Constitutional Court for the first time. This was due to an appeal by Libera (not her real name), a 55-year-old Tuscan woman suffering from progressive multiple sclerosis who, despite meeting all the conditions for assisted suicide, is completely paralyzed and therefore unable to independently administer the lethal drug. Yesterday, the Court issued its ruling (number 132): the questions regarding the constitutionality of Article 579 of the Criminal Code "raised by the Court of Florence" in reference to "Articles 2, 3, 13, and 32 of the Constitution" are "inadmissible." The appeal was therefore dismissed.
And the Constitutional Court explains the reasons: the civil judge of the Court of Florence did not conduct sufficient checks regarding the availability of devices that allow the patient to self-administer the lethal drug, such as infusion pumps activated by eye or voice commands. The Constitutional Court's statement states that the Florence judge acknowledged " mere market research by an operational unit of the Regional Health Service ," whereas he should have involved "specialized bodies operating, with the necessary degree of authority, at the central level, " such as the "Istituto Superiore di Sanità." The judges then admit that, if such devices could actually be obtained, the patient "would have the right to avail of them."
Following the ruling, the Coscioni Association immediately clarified that the Constitutional Court " did not make a decision on euthanasia by a doctor," as many newspapers had reported. Filomena Gallo, who coordinates Libera's legal team and is secretary general of the Luca Coscioni Association, clarified that the Constitutional Court ruled the question inadmissible "for strictly procedural reasons." She explained: " The Court did not declare the question unfounded. Indeed, it declared all the objections raised by the State Attorney's Office and the intervenors to be unfounded. The Judges confirmed that the action used was the only means to raise doubts about the constitutionality of Article 579 of the Criminal Code, which is the only provision standing between 'Libera' and its right to self-determination."
Gallo then outlined the next steps: " Now we will return to the Florence court, urgently requesting the national review that the Court requested through technical bodies of the Ministry of Health," with the hope that this investigation " will be concluded positively and quickly, because 'Libera's' illness is progressing." Finally, a dig at the majority's end-of-life bill : "The decision ," Gallo concluded , "clearly highlights the role of the National Health Service in verifying the manner in which a person's wishes are carried out, contrary to what the government majority wants to do by excluding it."
l'Unità
