Abstract

The difficulties in defining a juridical regulation of end-of-life are analyzed as the sign of more general transformations which have invested the forms of political conflict and the nature of legislative activity. The claim that the legislative majority decision may lead to the unconditional establishment of a single ethical vision deprives the political mediation of its proper function and ends up leaving only to the judicial intervention the duty to face both the irreducible cultural pluralism inherent in contemporary societies and the complexity of individual concrete cases. In this perspective, the essay tries to illustrate the problematic aspects of a bio-legal regulation based on such a precarious balance