Medically assisted suicide in Italy: the recent judgment of the Constitutional Court.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Medically assisted suicide is considered among the most contro-versial of the current bioethical debate in our Country. In the Italian legal system, we are lacking specific discipline of this practice, as it is covered by the general legal forms applicable to crimes against life. The Constitutional Court, with Decision No. 242/2019, declared the illegitimacy of Art. 580 of the Criminal Code (instigation to suicide), in the part not excluding the punishment of those who facilitates the execution of the intention to commit suicide, independently and freely formed, by a person kept alive by life support and suffering an irreversible disease, source of physical or psychological suffering that the person deems intolerable, but who is fully capable of making free and conscious decisions. The Constitutional Court found that the current regulatory fra-mework concerning the end of life leaves certain situations constitutio-nally worthy of protection and to be balanced with other constitutionally relevant assets without adequate protection. The Court has identified the conditions that can justify third-party assistance in ending the life of a sick person. The judges envisaged the possibility of including this discipline under Law No. 219/2017, but this hypothesis is not shared by the Italian National Bioethics Committee.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.036 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".