The unrestrainable evolution of medical science and technology is drastically changing healthcare, enabling new medical procedures and remedies, which are increasingly intertwined with moral principles. Although a uniform European approach to assisted suicide is lacking, a common trend is developing: the boundary between euthanasia, assisted suicide, and end-of-life care on one hand, and the frontiers of “legitimate medicine”, on the other are becoming increasingly blurred, emphasizing the polarization between secular and religious narratives.
In Italy, ruling no. 242/2019 of the Constitutional Court declared the partial unconstitutionality of Article 580 of the Italian Criminal Code, which prohibits assistance in suicide.
The present paper analyzes the legal regime of assisted dying in Italy, the role of the rule of law, the religious influence on political decision making, and investigates current legal challenges and potential future legal tracks.
In most Muslim-majority countries, Islamic normativity underwent a process of “positivization” completely altering the sense which is made of these norms and the ways through which they are obtained. This article aims to deepen our understanding of this phenomenon through a comparative examination of an issue addressed in classical fiqh, partly legislated in modern statutes and codes, sensitive to the progress of scientific evidentiary methods, and largely at judges’ discretion. It proceeds, for each of the three countries under study (Indonesia, Egypt, and Morocco), to describe the situation, starting with the legal system, family law, and the question of paternal filiation (ithbât al-nasab, in Arabic), then paying attention to the “trajectory” of a recent case, from first-instance decisions to final rulings. In conclusion, it focuses on the room that the combination of fiqh principles and contemporary legal sources and thinking opens for creative analogy, radically innovative interpretation, and polycentric tensions between various jurisdictions.
The article offers an overview of recent United States court cases on the topic of religious family agreements, focusing in particular on cases seeking to enforce mahr provisions, provisions of ketubahs, and religious upbringing agreements. Overall, the recent cases display the tensions created by an intersection of separate concerns: interpretive, doctrinal, and constitutional. The cases ultimately display a cautious approach, including a general reluctance to enforce provisions where doing so might interfere with religious freedom or override the financial rights of vulnerable parties.