The right to live with dignity during the final stages of existence, enshrined in national and supranational Charters of Rights, represents a significant step towards humanizing medicine and is integral to the right to health. Palliative Care, rooted in health, dignity, and therapeutic self-determination, has emerged as a fundamental human right and a moral imperative within health systems. It seeks to alleviate suffering, emphasizing the holistic well-being of patients with life-limiting illnesses. This paper provides a comprehensive global perspective on Palliative Care, with special attention to its implementation in Italy. Palliative Care is a crucial dimension of care, designed to enhance the quality of life for patients suffering from progressive and incurable diseases. Despite its growing need due to an aging population and increased prevalence of chronic illnesses, still remains a significant disparity in access to these essential services worldwide. Insufficient resources, legislative constraints, and limited training for healthcare providers pose challenges to the widespread adoption of Palliative Care. In Italy, although laws have been enacted to ensure the provision of Palliative Care, its availability remains inconsistent across different regions. Financial constraints and insufficient support hinder the comprehensive dissemination of these services. Recognizing the significance of Palliative Care, the Catholic Church also endorses its implementation as a response to human suffering and an approach to end-of-life care. Efforts to strengthen Palliative Care are critical to meeting the rising demand and ensuring access to compassionate and dignified care for all individuals in need. Through legislative advancements and adequate resources, Italy can make significant strides in advancing the provision of Palliative Care.

Background: Mental capacity is a fundamental aspect that enables patients to fully par-ticipate in various healthcare procedures. To assist healthcare professionals (HCPs) in assessing patients' capacity, especially in the mental health field, several standardized tools have been developed. These tools include the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T), the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR), and the Competence Assessment Tool for Psychiatric Advance Directives (CAT-PAD). The core dimensions explored by these tools include Understanding, Appreciation, Reasoning, and Expression of a choice. Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to investigate potential differences in deci-sion-making capacity within the healthcare context among groups of patients with bi-polar disorder (BD) and schizophrenia spectrum disorder (SSD). Methods: A systematic search was conducted on Medline/Pubmed, and Scopus. Addi-tionally, Google Scholar was manually inspected, and a manual search of emerging re-views and reference lists of the retrieved papers was performed. Eligible studies were specifically cross-sectional, utilizing standardized assessment tools, and involving pa-tients diagnosed with BD and SSD. Data from the studies were independently extracted and pooled using random-effect models. Hedges g was used as a measure for outcomes. Results: Six studies were identified, with three studies using the MacCAT-CR, two studies the MacCAT-T, and one the CAT-PAD. The participants included 189 individuals with BD and 324 individuals with SSD. The meta-analysis revealed that patients with BD performed slightly better, and the difference was statistically significant, compared to patients with SSD, particularly in the domain of Appreciation (ES=0.23, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.04, p=0.037). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for Understanding (ES=0.09, 95% CI: - 0.10 to 0.27, p=0.352), Reasoning (ES=0.18, 95% CI: - 0.12 to 0.47, p=0.074), and Expression of a choice (ES = 0.23, 95% CI: - 0.01 to 0.48, p=0.60). In the sensitivity analysis, furthermore, when considering only studies involving patients in symptomatic remission, the difference for Appreciation also resulted in non-significant (ES=0.21, 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.46, p=0.102). (ES=0.21, 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.46, p=0.102). Conclusions: These findings indicate that there are no significant differences between patients with BD and SSD during remission phases, while differences are minimal during acute phases. The usefulness of standardized assessment of capacity at any stage of the illness should be considered, both for diagnostic-therapeutic phases and for research and advance directives. Further studies are necessary to understand the reasons for the overlap in capacity between the two diagnostic categories compared in this study.