Forza Italia wants the end-of-life bill “at any cost”, but Meloni’s supporters fear Vannacci

Rome. Rather than focusing on end-of-life issues, this is a law caught between two stools. Fratelli d’Italia is scrutinising the text and wavering. Even so, it is slowly ploughing on. ““We hope that Stefania Craxi’s remarks on end-of-life issues will stir the consciences within FdI,” Forza Italia Senator Pierantonio Zanettin tells Il Foglio. He is the rapporteur for the bill, alongside Ignazio Zullo (a Meloni supporter), and does not deny the “state of neglect” in which the legislation finds itself. But FdI, in fact, moves like the Angel of History. Giorgia Meloni’s party is looking towards progress, yes, but with far less enthusiasm than Craxi (FI), who wrote in this newspaper yesterday that he wanted to “fight for the law at any cost”. Are these (almost) September-like impressions? It would seem not. “I take note of your feelings,” co-rapporteur Zullo tells us. (Leganza continues on page four)

“Even though the point,” adds Zullo, “is not the debate between the parties but defining a proposal that enjoys the widest possible consensus so as not to tear apart the social fabric.” But the question, then – beyond the three or four shades of right-wing opinion – is whether the end-of-life bill has, for one reason or another, run aground. “No. The text is under discussion in the joint Justice and Health Committees, pending the technical opinions of the Fifth Committee – the Budget Committee – following the amendment phase.” Can we therefore say that it has run aground? “No,” replies the FdI rapporteur. “We can, however, say that FI has expressed a desire to assess it in greater depth.” All right. Is Fratelli d’Italia not entirely convinced? “It is not a question of conviction.” Then what is it? “It is a matter of following a specific parliamentary procedure. And of remembering that this is a law founded on the principles of care and life. And that, in this regard, the National Health Service must also take the Essential Levels of Care (LEA) into account.” The Essential Levels of Care? “Yes. It must provide a service if it is included in the Lea.” Craxi wrote yesterday that it is “unacceptable that there are areas where the palliative care network functions and others where people are left to their own devices”. He was talking about palliative care. But he was raising the issue of the National Health Service. “We must always remember,” concludes Zullo, “that healthcare professionals are bound by a code of ethics and that a medicine is authorised with the aim of improving a person’s state of health. In short, there are regulatory requirements that are not easy to overcome, and we need to work out how to find a way forward.” Yes.

Meanwhile, however, whilst in this new phase of the ‘Fratelli-di-Centro’ there are those, such as Forza Italia, pushing for more progressive issues, there is no shortage of those urging a shift in the opposite direction. Meloni’s supporters – whether they like it or not – are wavering here between Marina and Vannacci. So much so that it is not difficult to guess Futuro Nazionale’s reaction to the stalled bill. After all, the General’s manifesto – and even the founding charter – enshrines the “defence of life from conception to natural death”. This rules out any acceptance by the Futurists of either abortion or euthanasia. “It’s called the murder of a consenting person,” says Professor Lorenzo Gasperini, who is Vannacci’s ideologue and the author of his manifesto. “If Forza Italia says ‘end-of-life’ rather than ‘murder’, it is because it is a left-wing, pro-death party. A party, let’s be clear, different from Fratelli d’Italia, where, however, the pro-life advocates are playing hide-and-seek.” Really? “I’m afraid so. And, if that is the case, we will be their spur. FdI’s spur. Not least because the life of every Italian is a common good and inalienable.” The logic – regarding the “common good” – seems somewhat Jacobin. But Gasperini explains to us, in any case, the futurist vision, including with regard to the Constitutional Court. “In Berlusconi’s day,” he says, “political communication adopted a dialectical stance towards the Constitutional Court and the President of the Republic; it had the courage to criticise them; there was a dynamic interplay of powers.” Is he touching on a raw nerve within the party? “I remember the ‘Save Eluana’ bill, with which Berlusconi tried to save the life of a young woman who was subsequently killed by starvation and dehydration because Napolitano did not countersign the decree. Well, today the most right-wing stance I’ve observed is that of playing the best possible hand with the cards dealt by the Constitutional Court, to which politics is subordinate.” Should the law not be passed? “Certainly, a law on consensual euthanasia should not be passed because there is no need for excessive regulation. Doctors have always been able to judge which treatments were disproportionate, harmful or caused unbearable physical pain. After that, we should have the courage to amend the Constitution, if anything. If, today, 75 per cent of those entitled to palliative care do not have access to it, it is because neither the left nor the far right are providing the funding. But the truth is that they want to kill the elderly and the sick partly to save money. And we refuse to play along with this ‘culture of waste’.” The accusation is almost as harsh as the subject matter itself. But the dilemma surrounding end-of-life care now lies entirely with those who find themselves halfway along the path.