Marco Cappato's promise: bringing the end-of-life law to the whole of Italy
Rights — di Simone Santi
Marco Cappato's promise: after Tuscany, we will bring the end-of-life law to the whole of Italy. Civil disobedience is still needed.
Marco Cappato's promise: bringing the end-of-life law to the whole of Italy
Marco Cappato's promise: after Tuscany, we will bring the end-of-life law to the whole of Italy. Civil disobedience is still needed.
With its regional law on medically assisted suicide, born from a citizens' initiative by the Luca Coscioni Association, Tuscany may have created a domino effect. On one hand, it could push other regions to follow suit by adopting their own end-of-life legislation. On the other, it could finally force parliament to act with a national law, precisely to prevent the regions from proceeding in a disorderly fashion. On yet another hand, however, given the controversy sparked by the initiative, the government could decide to challenge the Tuscan law and refer it to the Constitutional Court — the very same court that, back in 2018, had called on Parliament to provide clarity through a law regulating, once and for all, the legality of medically assisted suicide, or end-of-life. We take stock of the possible developments with Marco Cappato, treasurer of the Luca Coscioni Association, which has always campaigned for legal euthanasia.
Let's start with a bit of terminology. Euthanasia, assisted suicide, end-of-life. Are these interchangeable terms?
I use the term euthanasia because of its ancient etymology — "dying well", as painlessly as possible, in the way each person wishes. And this encompasses all the technical definitions. In a stricter sense, euthanasia refers to an act carried out with the direct assistance of a doctor (which is not the case under the Tuscan law, ed.). Then there are all the other definitions: medically assisted suicide (which involves a supporting but not active role for the doctor, ed.), or end-of-life, which is a more general evocation. But the fundamental question underlying everything is: do we want to leave people free to choose and support them in the final stage of their own lives, or do we want to impose a particular choice because we consider it morally superior?
Those who opt to impose a choice — the central government, for instance — could decide to challenge the Tuscan regional law and bring it before the Constitutional Court, even though the law was designed precisely to satisfy the criteria set out by the Court…
I believe that the Tuscan law — which is in fact our Liberi subito citizens' initiative law — is fully consistent with constitutional principles, because it implements the ruling of the Court that we ourselves wrested through our acts of civil disobedience. Obviously, if an appeal is lodged, the Constitutional Court will decide again, but this is a law implementing healthcare competencies, and the regions are fully empowered in the management of healthcare.
In the meantime, however, the composition of the Constitutional Court has changed, and so has the climate to some extent. Could the Consulta end up contradicting itself?
It can happen — it happened recently in the United States, when the Supreme Court trampled over previous rulings on the right to abortion. Freedoms are never won forever, so the fact that we have secured reforms on end-of-life issues up to now does not mean there is no possibility of going backwards.
In the Senate, meanwhile, dialogue appears to be accelerating towards a draft law shared between the majority and the opposition, between right and left. The last time something like this happened on an ethical issue, it did not end well — I'm thinking of the ddl Zan on homotransphobia. Are you optimistic, or do you think a very watered-down text could emerge?
It's not a matter of being optimistic or pessimistic, but of determination. Today there are 13 people under investigation, myself included, for civil disobedience in 7 cases, and we face between 5 and 12 years in prison: we know that to press ahead with this initiative, nonviolence, civil disobedience, popular participation and citizens' initiative are essential. If Parliament is not left to decide alone but decides in front of the people, people know this issue because they have experienced it within their own families, and I believe that in this case reforms can be achieved. If, on the other hand, everything stays confined to the corridors of power, within the mediation agreements between parties, then things do not bode well.
So public mobilisation will be decisive, more so than politics?
Yes. Parliamentary manoeuvring can take all kinds of forms, but here there are broad majorities — unlike with the legge Zan — even among the centre-right electorate. Several polls have been conducted, and those in favour of legal euthanasia are generally always between 70 and 80 per cent. It is the party leaderships that are paralysed or hostile: which is why the game doesn't work, unless it becomes a murky and secretive one.
Secondo l'Istituto Noto Sondaggi gli italiani rivendicano il diritto di... ilgiornale.it/news/interni/p…
So what are the next steps?
We have called a national mobilisation across Italy for 5 April in support of regional laws, so that other regions may establish clear rules and timelines for implementing the procedures for medically assisted suicide. To prevent people with unbearable and irreversible suffering from having to wait months and years for a response to their request.
Let's take a look at the regions that could soon follow Tuscany's example.
The discussion is currently open in Abruzzo and in Valle d'Aosta. We will be launching the campaign in Umbria; the majority of the regional council in Sardinia has also said it wants to approve it. But we are taking the text across the whole of Italy. For us, it has never been a question of right or left, of party or political alignment, and so we continue to work.