[Towards the revision of the Italian code of medical ethics: thoughts of an extremist.] / Verso la revisione del Codice di deontologia medica: riflessioni di un estremista.

In November 2022 the Italian medical council (Federazione nazionale degli ordini dei medici chirurghi e odontoiatri) started the revision of the Italian Code of medical ethics (Cme) with the first race dating back ten years. Since then, the Italian doctors are dealing with the scientific, ethical and economic challenges together with the more recent ones posed by the Sars-CoV-2 pandemic to the National health system underlying the ongoing crisis of the medical profession. Additionally, this critical context requires the doctors to develop new technological skills, a complete and effective adherence to the Ebm principles, a new view regarding the relationship with the other health care professionals and the related changes of clinical practices fostering a responsible use of resources. In brief, what is required nowadays from doctors is to rethink about the meaning of science, ethics, economics and public health and to make new and more appropriate connections between the instances conveyed by these different disciplines. The Cme main aim consists in providing appropriate rules in step with the current transformations of medicine and society to doctors for ethically acting in clinical practice, assuring the citizens, the institutions and law of the scientific competence, the protection of the fundamental rights of the sick person in compliance with the constitutional principles. Under this assumption and in line with the above mentioned professional crisis, at least the overall guidelines aimed to solve it should have been settled before starting the Cme review also in order to ensure the necessary coherence between the new contents drawing the doctors new social function and its codal systemisation. Unfortunately this stepwise approach was not considered.Lastly, to develop the new Cme looking towards the progress of medical profession, systematic and methodologically appropriate consultations would have been necessary to know, value and balance all the different positions of doctors, allowing them to be responsible for the change of their profession. However, such a decision was not made.

[The dark price that non-covid patients are paying to covid pandemic: the "chinese boxes" of the public health crisis.] / Il prezzo pagato alla pandemia dai malati non covid: le scatole cinesi della crisi sanitaria.

In Italy, as in the other Western countries, during the different pandemic surges, the health care systems have undergone an unprecedented imbalance between health care resources demand and supply due to the huge number of patients affected by covid-19. In this dramatic scenario the access to the necessary hospital care for non-covid patients has been limited or precluded. Delays in diagnostic procedures or in caring for many acute or chronic diseases can result in a dangerous increase in their severity with a consequent increase in short and long-term related mortality. This is evident both with regard to time-dependent acute diseases, such as coronary artery syndromes or cerebrovascular diseases, and chronic degenerative diseases such as neoplasms. In this case the natural consequence of the interruption of the screening activities will require more complex treatments with a lower probability of a good outcome and higher mortality. Developing policies to promote healthcare access for non-covid patients population is an urgent task for governmental bodies and all decision makers to prevent a health crisis of unpredictable proportions. This narrative review is firstly aimed to set out the findings regarding the comparison between the trends of hospital admissions, surgical interventions, diagnostic and screening procedures for cardiac, cerebrovascular and oncological diseases before and during pandemic around the world; secondly, some public health policies are put forward in order to begin the restoration of medical services for non-covid patients.

[The Italian National Healthcare System and the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a foretold debacle? Reflections for changing.] / Il Sistema Sanitario Nazionale e la pandemia da SARS-CoV-2: un disastro annunciato? Riflessioni per un cambiamento.

Almost two years after the first official report from World Health Organization (WHO), the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (covid-19) outreached 200 mln of cases around the world with an overall mortality equal to 2% (more than 4.5 mln of cases). In many countries, when the surge in cases of severe covid-19 respiratory failure has exceeded the availability of intensive healthcare resources (intensive care beds, respirators, human resources) clinicians were forced to triage intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. In order to support these difficult decisions, many scientific societies and national regulatory bodies developed guidelines to prioritize patients entitled to receive mechanical ventilation and other life support treatments. From an ethical point of view two main theoretical approaches - the egalitarian and the utilitarian one - have been suggested to identify the criteria to be adopted for triaging the ICU patients. In regard, there is a limited consensus until now and in many cases these different theoretical approaches gave rise to a clash of opinions contributing to additional difficulties for doctors. In Italy, the National Committee for Bioethics is the only public institution that, through an official document, has expressly taken a position on the issue of triage and rationing of resources, admitting its lawfulness in particular conditions as long as it is based on common clinical criteria of clinical appropriateness and ethical proportionality, underlining however the fundamental role of "preparedness". As the covid-19 crisis seems slowing down, the need to debate the triage criteria and the allocation of the scarce ICU resources it seems less pressing. Instead, it seems more useful to dwell on two aspects with respect to the choice of regulatory criteria for allocating resources: 1) the necessary interconnection between macro- and micro-allocation choices which ends up conditioning the decision-making processes relating to individual patients; 2) the opportunity for decision-makers and healthcare professionals to maintain a right level of "honesty" towards citizens and patients regarding the causes of the lack of resources and the decision-making processes that involve the need to make "tragic choices" at both levels.

COVID-19 pandemic in ICU. Limited resources for many patients: approaches and criteria for triaging.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shattered the illusion that healthcare resource shortages that require rationing are problems restricted to low- and middle-income countries. During the pandemic surges, many high-income countries have been confronted with unprecedented demands for healthcare systems that dramatically exceeded available resources. Hospitals capacities were overwhelmed, and physicians working in intensive care units (ICUs) were often forced to deny admissions to patients in desperate need of intensive care. To support these difficult decisions, many scientific societies and governmental bodies have developed guidelines on the triage of patients in need of mechanical ventilation and other life-support treatments. The ethical approaches underlying these guidelines were grounded on egalitarian or utilitarian principles. Thus far, however, consensus on the approaches used, and, above all, on the solutions adopted have been limited, giving rise to a clash of opinions that has further complicated health professionals' ability to respond optimally to their patients' needs. As the COVID-19 crisis moves toward a phase of what some have called "pandemic normalcy," the need to debate the merits and demerits of the individual decisions made in the allocation of ICU resources seems less pressing. Instead, the aims of the authors are: 1) to critically review the approaches and criteria used for triaging patients to be admitted in ICU; 2) to clarify how macro- and micro-allocation choices, in their interdependance, can condition decision-making processes regarding the care of individual patients; 3) to reflect on the need for decision-makers and professionals working in ICUs to maintain a proper degree of "honesty" towards citizens and patients regarding the causes of the resource shortages and the decision-making processes, which, in different ways routinely and in crisis times, involve the need to make "tragic choices" at both levels.

COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND TRIAGE: PHILOSOPHY AND THE LAW SOMETIMES LOOK AT THE TREE WHILE MEDICINE TRIES TO PUT OUT THE FOREST FIRE

On February 21st, 2020, the first case of severe acute respiratory failure due to the coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was identified in Italy. As of March 8th, 2020, Italy was the 2nd most affected country in the world. As of March 6th, 2020, the Italian Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) published the clinical ethics Recommendations for the allocation of intensive care treatments in exceptional, resource-limited circumstances, in order to support the clinicians involved in the care of critically-ill CoViD-19 patients and facing a scenario of imbalance between supply and demand of ICU beds. The SIAARTI Recommendations have raised stir within the medical-scientific community, and also among legal experts, philosophers, and in the media. The aims of this paper are: 1) to summarize the ethical foundations of the SIAARTI recommendations;2) to report the scientific evidence on which the recommendations are grounded;3) to describe the economic, organizational and epidemiological context;4) to reply to some of the criticisms.