Coscienza religiosa e dichiarazioni anticipate di trattamento. L'omesso riconoscimento dell'obiezione nella legge n.219/2017

The main aim of the paper is to demonstrate the renewed role of the theme of conscientious objection for ethicalreligious reasons as a direct consequence of today's multi-ethnic and multicultural context.In the recent legislation on advance treatment provisions (Law 219/2017), the legislator has chosen to omit anyreference to conscientious objection, thus leaving gaps for protection. This theme implies an immediate referenceto the so-called sensitive" choice which, by affecting purely human aspects (life and death) is linked with thereligious, cultural and ethical convictions of the individual. This link is not so obvious because to understand itssignificance one must place one's mind not only at the moment in which the provisions are formulated but alsoat the moment in which they are received and applied. There is therefore the need for a reasonable understandingof the choices of the individual to ensure that they do not make an interpretation the content of which is differentfrom the original. It is necessary to have a real and thorough interpretation in which the analysis of the religious- cultural background is essential, both of the patient and of the healthcare staff, in order to construct legalformulas of intercultural translation. The religious-cultural element becomes crucial for an adequate decoding ofintentions within a meaningful context.Any tentative attempts to offer an extensive interpretation of the law 219/2017 that allows us to give a positivemeaning to the silence of the legislator through a general reference to the "conscience clause" of art. 22 of theCode of Ethics appear unreasonable. In this way, there is a risk of equating deontological rules with a rule ofprimary rank, distorting the hierarchy of sources. Based on these observations, the omitted recognition ofconscientious objection within the law 219/2017 has led to the belief that it should be understood as a form ofobjection "contra legem", that is to say excluded by the legislator as a behavior deemed to be in conflict with thelegislative precept and therefore illegal. .. [edited by Author]