Taggato: Diritto alla vita

VANNUCCINI S. – «Memento mori» («secundum voluntatem medicorum et sententiam iudicum»). Il caso francese di Vincent Lambert

Abstract

The case of Vincent Lambert refers to the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration of a French patient in a state characterized as «minimally conscious plus», according to the decision taken by the doctors in charge of him, first confirmed by the Conseil d’État and then by the ECtHR, but in the absence both of advance directives drawn up by the patient and of a person of trust within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Public Health Code, and also with the opposite opinion of his parents and other family members.
This case is not only a patient’s case, but also a question about the death, that of a young man in the incapacity to express its will. This case, and the questionable national and European rulings, reopen a debate never ceased in France, as in Europe as a whole, about the rights of patients and their representatives, the duties of care and assistance, the distinction between treatments and vital treatments, the full protection of human frailty, the unavailability of one’s own bodily life.[…]

SARTARELLI S. – La Corte EDU “bacchetta” (forse troppo severamente) l’Italia per l’omessa tutela rilevata in un caso di violenza domestica

*L’articolo è stato scritto nell’ambito del progetto “Diritti e situazioni giuridiche soggettive tra incertezze (nazionali) e ricerca dell’effettività della tutela (sovranazionale). Una ricerca interdisciplinare”, diretto dalla Prof.ssa Luisa Cassetti e finanziato dalla Ricerca di base 2015 – Università degli Studi di Perugia

Abstract

Sommario: 1. La necessaria ricostruzione storica.- 2. Le ragioni della Corte.- 3. Alcune perplessità
1.La necessaria ricostruzione storica.
Con la sentenza in commento, l’Italia viene condannata per non aver adempiuto agli obblighi positivi derivanti dagli artt. 2 e 3 della Convenzione ed anche per aver, così facendo, determinato una discriminazione di genere in violazione dell’art. 14; più nello specifico, le autorità italiane avrebbero omesso di intervenire tempestivamente (sia sul piano sostanziale che processuale) a tutela della vita e dell’integrità fisica della ricorrente e dei suoi figli, vittime di violenza domestica da parte del marito, il quale, nel reiterare le condotte aggressive del proprio nucleo familiare, finiva per uccidere il figlio della ricorrente. […]

In this judgment Italy was condemned for failing to comply the positive obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and also for having, in so doing, determined a gender discrimination in breach of Article 14. More specifically, the Italian authorities failed to intervene in a timely manner (both processually and substantially) in order to protect the life and physical integrity of the applicant and her children, victims of domestic violence by her husband. The man, during an aggression against the applicant, killed her son who had intervened in the desperate attempt to defend the mother.
The Italian State, as censored by the Court, did not consider the applicant’s risk of life and therefore did not take the necessary precautionary measures to protect the victims of domestic violence. Although fairly shared, the judgment raises doubts about the concrete possibility for the Italian authorities to recognize the existence of the indicated risk.
.

 

Accessibility