24 Oct diagnosis of cancer and prescription of diets and mud treatments

Responsible for the slightest crime of death or injury as a consequence of another crime ex art. 586 c.p., and not of voluntary homicide, the naturopath that, consulted following a diagnosis of cancer, exercising the medical profession illegally, prescribe for diet and mud cure. The Supreme Court confirmed the judgment on the merits in this sense, who had ruled out the crime of voluntary homicide for a self-styled healer who considered naturopathy as an alternative to medicine, precisely by virtue of his own ignorance of medicine. In tal senso, in accordance with the regulatory dictum, the unlawful case of death or injury as a consequence of another crime is integrated in the hypothesis in which the agent commits a criminal act, configured as an intentional crime, and from the latter follows death and injuries, unwanted, of a person.

The rule, therefore, assuming the existence of an etiological link between two illicit cases, describes a single conduct, constituting an intentional crime, causing a further aggravating event to arise from the latter, foreign to the will of the guilty.

The Legislator, in line with the principle of guilt pursuant to art. 27 Cost., he was not limited to the mere configuration of the offense, but he pointed out the psychological criterion of reproach the agent with respect to the further occurrence, through the reference to art. 83 c.p. .

By virtue of this, the person responsible for the crime actually wanted is liable for death and injuries by way of negligence, with the clarification that the penalties for manslaughter and negligent injuries have increased (Cass. 26951/20).