Monicelli's suicide has reawakened a political and legal dispute about the medical role in end-of-life decisions, allowing us to discuss medical, ethical, legal, religious and political debate in various paradigmatic conscious and unconscious cases of end-of-life decision. We analyse the uncertainty about the ‘a priori’ choice between different specific legislative systems, highlighting the need for a unifying model, dictated by the existing trust in the critical relationship between patient and doctor, whose primary mission should be not only ‘to cure’ but also ‘to care’.
- Laws and Cases
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Mr Marty’s muddle: a superficial and selective case for euthanasia in Europe
- Canadian French and English newspapers’ portrayals of physicians’ role and medical assistance in dying (MAiD) from 1972 to 2016: a qualitative textual analysis
- A case for justified non-voluntary active euthanasia: exploring the ethics of the Groningen Protocol
- Euthanasia and eudaimonia
- Impact of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) on family caregivers
- Euthanasia and other end of life decisions and care provided in final three months of life: nationwide retrospective study in Belgium
- A test for mental capacity to request assisted suicide
- Assisted suicide and euthanasia in Switzerland: allowing a role for non-physicians
- Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy. An Argument Against Legislation
- Assisted suicide organisation opens branch in Germany