Neuroscience and end-of-life decisions. New anthropological challenges for constitutional law: «Is Human Nature the only science of man»?

Nowadays, neuroscience permits the unveiling of interior elements of hu-man beings - the perception of pain, the presence of consciousness and even the will - in the absence of external manifestations. Physicians, indeed, seem capable of measuring the true mental state of individuals and their inner world through an elec-troencephalography or a functional magnetic resonance imaging. This new frontier affects the world of law and places heavy demands for lawyers embroiled in end-of-life matters. The present paper focuses on the use of neuroscientific acquisitions within end-of-life decisions, aiming to highlight two risks embedded in this use: the utmost deference towards science and scientific authority and the maximization of self-determination. The paper will provide, at the beginning, a framework of case law and end-of-life regulatory attempts; it will follow the analysis of the main challenges posed to law by advances in neuroscience. In the latter part of this paper, we will of-fer food for thought on the role of neuroscience and - in a broader perspective - of science in law.