Criteria for allocation of life-saving resources during the SARS-COV-2 pandemic: ethical implications and aspects of legal liability.

The issue of political, institutional and professional liability in the context of the SARS-COV-2 pandemic is currently widely debated and involves several levels of investigation. One crucial aspect relates to the allocation of life-saving resources in situations where there is an imbalance between need and availability and the associated questions of ethical and legal liability. This work looks at the implications of the criteria applied to rationing under extraordinary conditions and the issue of their legitimacy. Considering the European scenario, we describe the approach taken by Italy in proposing criteria for pandemic triage of intensive treatment and highlight certain problems and critical issues. We emphasise that the decision, based on a comparative assessment, to deny treatment to a patient in critical condition, compromising that patient's right to care, exceeds the scope of decision-making autonomy of the professional concerned and requires a theoretical and procedural definition shared at multiple levels of society.

Management of suspected COVID-19 patients in a low prevalence region.

The spread of the SARS-CoV-2 infection among population has imposed a re-organization of healthcare services, aiming at stratifying patients and dedicating specific areas where patients with suspected COVID-related respiratory disease could receive the necessary health care assistance while waiting for the confirmation of the diagnosis of COVID-19 disease. In this scenario, the pathway defined as a "grey zone" is strongly advocated. We describe the application of rules and pathways in a regional context with low diffusion of the infection among the general population in the attempt to provide the best care to respiratory patients with suspected COVID-19. To date, this process has avoided the worst-case scenario of intra-hospital epidemic outbreak.