Le giustificazioni interpretative nella pratica dell’interpretazione giuridica

The question at issue in the present essay is whether there is a reason to doubt the seemingly indubitable fact that the function of interpretive justifications of judges and lawyers is to show that certain interpretive judgments are correct. The conclusion is that there is a reason to doubt this fact: the reason is that judges and lawyers do not seem to attribute this function to their interpretive justifications, because their justifications do not have the content which is needed to perform such a function. Four theses are developed to support this conclusion. First, there are three meanings in which interpretive judgments could be said correct: grounded on facts; grounded on norms belonging to the legal system; grounded on moral norms. Second, an examination of interpretive argumentation indicates that interpretive judgments are to be conceived as moral judgments, whose correctness depends on moral norms. Third, to claim that an interpretive judgment is correct, the interpretive justification which is offered must have a premise that states a methodological principle, i.e. a moral norm prescribing a hierarchy of interpretive arguments to be used to attribute a meaning to legal texts. Fourth, the premise that states a certain methodological principle is a missing element in the interpretive justifications of judges and lawyers

Alcune osservazioni sull'antipaternalismo moderato di Maniaci

Espongo qui alcune osservazioni sul libro di Giorgio Maniaci, Contra el paternalismo jurídico, che intende difendere una teoria antipaternalistica moderata. Dapprima mi occupo del concetto di paternalismo. Discuto poi della possibilità di giustificare un divieto di danneggiare se stessi sulla base di ragioni non paternalistiche. Infine esamino i caratteri che, secondo Maniaci, un’azione deve possedere per evitare interferenze paternalistiche, mostrando che la sua posizione può essere considerata paternalistica anziché antipaternalistica.Here, I make some remarks on Giorgio Maniaci’s book, Contra el paternalismo jurídico, aimed at defending a soft antipaternalistic theory. Firstly, I deal with the concept of paternalism. Then, I discuss the possibility of justifying a prohibition of self-harming activities on the basis of nonpaternalistic reasons. At last I analyse the properties that, according to Maniaci, an action should have to avoid paternalistic interferences, and I show that his position may be considered paternalistic instead of antipaternalistic

Operationalizing mild cognitive impairment criteria in small vessel disease: The VMCI-Tuscany Study

Introduction Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) prodromic of vascular dementia is expected to have a multidomain profile. Methods In a sample of cerebral small vessel disease (SVD) patients, we assessed MCI subtypes distributions according to different operationalization of Winblad criteria and compared the neuroimaging features of single versus multidomain MCI. We applied three MCI diagnostic scenarios in which the cutoffs for objective impairment and the number of considered neuropsychological tests varied. Results Passing from a liberal to more conservative diagnostic scenarios, of 153 patients, 5% were no longer classified as MCI, amnestic multidomain frequency decreased, and nonamnestic single domain increased. Considering neuroimaging features, severe medial temporal lobe atrophy was more frequent in multidomain compared with single domain. Discussion Operationalizing MCI criteria changes the relative frequency of MCI subtypes. Nonamnestic single domain MCI may be a previously nonrecognized type of MCI associated with SVD

La responsabilità penale nell'esercizio della professione sanitaria. Un'analisi della sentenza della Corte di Cassazione, Sezioni Unite penali, 22 febbraio 2018, n. 8770

L’art. 590-sexies del Codice penale dispone che agli esercenti la professione sanitaria non si applicano le pene previste per l’omicidio colposo e le lesioni personali colpose ove ricorrano determinate circostanze. Ci sono disaccordi sull’interpretazione di questo articolo e, dunque, sulle circostanze che dovrebbero determinare l’esclusione della pena. La sentenza della Corte di cassazione, Sezioni Unite penali, 22 febbraio 2018, n. 8770 dà un’interpretazione restrittiva di questo articolo, respingendo due interpretazioni alternative precedentemente proposte. In queste pagine esamino la tesi interpretativa e l’argomentazione interpretativa avanzate dalla Corte, per poi delineare uno schema del ragionamento da essa eseguito.The article 590-sexies of the Italian Penal Code establishes that, in some circumstances, the penalties for manslaughter and negligent personal injury shall not be applied to persons practicing healthcare professions. Some disagreements have arisen on the interpretation of that article and, consequently, on the circumstances in which the application of the penalties is to be excluded. The judgment of the Corte di cassazione, Sezioni penali unite, 22 February 2018, N. 8770 gives a restrictive interpretation of that article and rejects two alternative interpretations previously proposed. Here I analyse the Court’s interpretive thesis and argumentation, moving thereafter to a brief reconstruction of its reasoning