Abstract
In the judgment no. 22/2022 the Constitutional Court incorporated into its case law the summa divisio, made by the legal literature, between mandatory and compulsory medical treatment, delimiting at the same time the scope of articles 13 and 32 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court, however, in analysing the security measure of assignment to a REMS (an acronym for “Residenza per l’Esecuzione delle Misure di Sicurezza”, i.e. Residence for the Execution of Security Measures), theorised the existence, in the legal system, of a compulsory health treatment different from that
provided for by Law no. 180/1978. The present contribution critically examines this assumption, reiterating the need for equal treatment for all persons subjected to measures restricting personal freedom, both when they serve a prison sentence and when, judged not imputable, they are assigned to a REMS.
Titolo tradotto del contributo | [Autom. eng. transl.] The distinction between "compulsory" healthcare treatment and "coercive" healthcare treatment in the recent jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. Lights and shadows |
---|---|
Lingua originale | Italian |
pagine (da-a) | 569-588 |
Numero di pagine | 20 |
Rivista | CORTI SUPREME E SALUTE |
Stato di pubblicazione | Pubblicato - 2022 |
Keywords
- Rems, misure di sicurezza, trattamento sanitario obbligatorio, libertà personale