[Reviewing the so-called ″Living Will″].
Cases like those of Terry Schiavo or Eluana Englaro have given rise to a lot of discussions at all levels. What both of them have in common is that, beyond the reasons given for terminating their lives and the methods used to achieve it, their destiny was not decided by them. This has resulted in a lot of heated debates in the public sphere as well as in the juridical, political, medical and speculative-ethical fields. Many people have been led to ask themselves: ″Wouldn't a better solution have been found if the desire of both persons had been known without any shadow of doubt, in the case that they had foreseen the situation in which they eventually found themselves in?″. The concept of the so-called Living Will appears to be a good solution for such cases. However, in the years in which attempts have been made to introduce this into practice, important ethical questions regarding end-of-life situations have come up: Can everything in my life, including when and how I die, be part of a legacy? Is a person who enjoys good health in a position to autonomously determine how he would like to be treated if, in an uncertain future, he ends up in a situation where he is incapable of communicating his wishes? Is the ordinary citizen capable of domineering the multiplicity of treatments, diagnosis and prognosis which medical science has to offer? Is it the same thing to forego a complicated treatment as to renounce artificial feeding and hydration? This article examines all these arguments, offering at the same time the case for and the case against the so-called Living Will.
Agulles Simó
Pau
P
Pontificia Università della Santa Croce, Piazza di Sant'Apollinare 49, 00186 Roma, Itália. agulles@pusc.it
D016223:Advance Directives; D006801:Humans; D008020:Life Support Care; D016224:Living Wills; D009626:Terminology as Topic