Umberto Veronesi, 'I made my living will' 
Public a fine article by Umberto Veronesi published in La Stampa 8 March 2011: I made a living will a few years ago, and for three reasons.
to reaffirm my beliefs on freedom to dispose of their lives.
For the deep love my family, I do not want ever to be torn by doubt about what to do with my life.
out of respect for doctors who will take care of me.
I also wanted to make it public: "I signed Umberto Veronesi, ..., at the height of my mental faculties and in total freedom of choice, provide as follows: in case of illness or traumatic brain injury and irreversible crippling ask not be subjected to no treatment or support (nutrition and hydration) ... This will be my way respected by the doctors that will take care of me ... " .
living will consider the more correct attitude especially towards the physicians, that is, to those who will, in practice, to have therapeutic responsibility of an individual not more aware.
In February 2009, lawyer Stephen Rodotà , arguing over the case of Eluana, wrote: "That's art. 32 issue of the constitutionality of the person is manifested with particular intensity. After considering health as a fundamental right of the individual, it is expected that compulsory treatment can be provided only by law, but "in no circumstances" could breach the limit imposed by the "respect for human dignity."
E ', this is one of the strongest statements of our Constitution, since it raises an insurmountable limit to the legislature, even stronger than that provided for in Article 13 for personal freedom, which allows restrictions under the Act and a reasoned decision of the court.
Article 32 shall be well. When you reach the hard core of existence, the need to respect the human person as such, we are in front of the 'unspeakable.
No external will, even if it were expressed in chorus by all the citizens or by a unanimous parliament, may take the place of the person concerned. We are facing a new kind of declaration of habeas corpus, a self-limitation of power " .
The living will, which certifies the person concerned is therefore the most appropriate way to ensure that no external will prevalere.A to this principle was inspired by the 1997 Oviedo Convention on Human Rights and the Biomedicine, Article 9 states that are taken into account 'i previously expressed wishes about medical intervention by a patient who, at surgery, is unable to express his will. "
As for our country, 18 December 2003 the National Bioethics Committee approved a document which called for legislative action aimed at forcing the doctor to examine the statements of assets and will motivate each other decision in the medical record.
Unfortunately everything stopped for fear, by those who are against euthanasia, living wills that just opened the way through.
So in the spring of 2010, while a perfect media operation presented with great emphasis on the entry into force of the law that organizes and supports palliative care, the House, where gestation in the law on living wills, passed amid protests of a few amendments which seriously undermines the right self-determination of the patient: artificial nutrition and hydration may not be a declaration in advance of treatment.
Should be useless or harmful, the doctors will decide. But
Italian citizens really want to entrust the decision to doctors on how they want to die?
By Veronesi Foundation, in early 2007 I decided to entrust the answer to a survey that was conducted on a sample of 4300 adults, and created by your ISP, the Institute for studies on public opinion.
Before discussing the other issues raised by research, I believe it is essential to answer the question more importantly, that the legislature can not pretend to ignore: Who gets to decide?
Respondents were given a very detailed question: "If a person is suffering from a fatal disease or brain injury that prevents her from expressing their will and forced to dependence on cars, who should wait for the decision not to give or may suspend the processing keep her artificially alive? ".
Well, here are the answers: only 5% of respondents said that the decision rests with the doctor who is treating the patient (in hospital, in intensive care at home), while 50% said that the decision it is for the patient who has expressed his willingness on when it was still in full mental clarity.
This answer was given by half of those who had faced the problem and 40% of those who if they were ever placed. This answer seems very plausible and clearly prevalent than the others, who still carry: 20% responded that the decision is up to a family member (spouse / parent / children or other relatives), 20% that the decision is not up to anyone because "life is a gift and we must do everything to protect it," another 5% entrusts the decision "to an ethics committee of experts," and a residue 1% "to a judge / magistrate."
The song is taken from the new book by Veronesi "The right not to suffer" (Knopf)
