RESUMEN
Informed consent for CoViD-19 vaccines can be considered a step that can help us focus on an increasingly burdensome problem for contemporary medicine: the difficult relationship of trust between citizens and academic medicine. Filling out forms full of useless information cannot replace the rebuilding of trust based on shared essential ethical principles. Trust needs to be protected by a transparent accountability, which can also decrease the threatening looming of lawsuits. Medicine must be safe, first and foremost, for the practitioner. He cannot practice it if he feels constantly in check, if the outcome of the treatment does not correspond to the wishes of those who request it.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Consentimiento Informado/psicología , Relaciones Médico-Paciente , Confianza , Negativa a la Vacunación/psicología , Actitud Frente a la Salud , Francia , Humanos , Consentimiento Informado/legislación & jurisprudencia , Italia , Responsabilidad Legal , Opinión Pública , Negativa a la Vacunación/legislación & jurisprudenciaRESUMEN
A position statement published by the Italian Society of Anesthesia Analgesia Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) is fostering a vibrant debate, crossed by deep fears. These are recommendations addressed to ICU doctors who must decide whether to implement intensive treatments for patients who need them to survive. Specifically, the reference is to the patients to whom the CoViD-19 epidemic has compromised respiratory capacity. We still do not have clear what positive criteria can help make clinical decisions in contexts of insufficient resources that force us to make choices.