Antonio G. Spagnolo

Conscientious objection in the health care field—that is, refusal on the part of a medical professional to perform or cooperate in a procedure when it violates his or her conscience—is a growing concern for international legislators and a source of contentious debates among ethicists and the general public. Recognizing a general right to conscientious objection based on individual liberty, and thus a subjective right, could have negative consequences. Conscientious objection in health care settings should be fully protected, however, when the objection is based on principles that are fundamental to the medical profession and the legal system. Examples from Italy and other nations show how protections there safeguard conscientious objection when a health professional objects to taking a human life. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 12.4 (Winter 2012): 611–620.

The authors report the first Italian experience of a research ethics committee (REC) audit focused on the evaluation of the REC’s compliance with standard operating procedures, requirements in insurance coverage, informed consent, protection of privacy and confidentiality, predictable risks/harms, selection of subjects, withdrawal criteria and other issues, such as advertisement details and justification of placebo. The internal audit was conducted over a two-year period (March 2009–February 2011) divided into quarters to better value the influence of the new insurance coverage regulation that came into effect in March 2010 (Ministerial Decree of 14 July, 2009) and expand the requirements to safeguard participants in clinical drug trials including other critical items as information and consent and the risks to benefits ratio. Out of a total of 639 REC’s opinions and research studies, 316 were reviewed. Regarding the insurance policy requirements, Auditor/REC non-compliance occurred only in one case. The highest number of Auditor/REC non-compliance was in regard to information and consent, which should have incurred a suspended decision rather than a favorable opinion. This internal audit shows the importance and the difficulty of the review process. For this reason, specific courses for members of the research ethics committee and for those who aspire to become auditors will be provided. There may also be efforts to improve the standard operating procedures already in place

ABSTRACT Nanotechnologies are an expression of the human ability to control and manipulate matter on a very small scale. Their use will enable an even and constant monitoring of human organisms, in a new and perhaps less invasive way. Debates at all levels – national, European and international – have pointed out the common difficulty of giving a complete, clear definition of nanotechnologies. This is primarily due to the variety of their components, to the fact that there is not just one technology but several. The most significant medical applications of nanotechnologies are in the diagnostic and the therapeutic fields, eg biosensors and molecular imaging, providing diagnosis and drug delivery with no invasive methods involved. Like any other emerging field, such technologies imply new possibilities for improving health but, on the other hand, they are still at an experimental stage and therefore should be implemented under rigorous safety testing before going on general release. For this purpose, the ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) of nanotechnologies have been elaborated by study groups, in order to develop solutions before the results of the tests are diffused into medical practice. The aim of this paper is to define some of the ethical issues concerning biomedical applications and to evaluate whether there is a need for new or additional guidelines and regulations.

The contribution describes a case report addressed in 2011 by the clinical ethics consultation service team of the Institute of Bioethics and Medical Humanities at the “Agostino Gemelli” School of Medicine of the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome. The clinical case regards ethical dilemmas about the patient’s prospects for receiving an orthotopic liver transplant, because she was a non-resident and lacked a caregiver to assist her during the follow-up period, as well as a place to stay after liver transplant surgery. DOI: 10.5294/pebi.2016.20.1.7

A Second level Master in “Clinical Bioethics Consultation” has been organized in Italy to offer an opportunity to offer an adequate training to carry out an ethics consultation in different health fields. The master has been promoted and realized by different institutions: Catholic University of Sacred Hearth in Rome, Insubria University in Varese, “Federico II” University in Naples, Lanza Foundation in Padua and the Local Health and Social Care Unit n.7 in Veneto Region. The aim of the master is train ethics consultants to offer help regarding a correct decision, which will take by others. The choice must be as much as possible shared between patient, family and health care team. Ethics consultation can be primarily request by the physicians, nurses and health care staff such as support about a choice that wants to be the most appropriate and to clarify a dilemma between different options. Secondly an ethics consultation can be demand by the patient and the family members to find a clarification about their dilemmas and future choices. Also the administrative staff could ask the consultation, when it need to better explain ad example about a specific clinical case or a question concerned the health policy.

This article addresses some critical aspects of the relationship between aesthetic medicine (AM) and ethics and proposes a possible deontological ethical line to pursue based on current practices. The role of AM has always been controversial and suffers from unclear practical and moral boundaries, even within academic settings, since it aims to improve the appearance of individuals, not to cure a disease. Today, it is essential and pertinent to discuss these issues, as AM specialists are dealing with a growing and increasingly demanding patient population that has undergone profound evolution in recent years. Current challenges within the field of AM include a lack of global uniformity concerning the education of AM specialists, an increasing number of physicians practicing AM with diverse training backgrounds, the spread of AM being practiced outside of medical practice or hospital settings, and the influence of social media where the success is modelled and dictated by the identification of a youthful appearance). By the field of action enriched by technologies that aim not only at enhancement per se but also at the preservation and regeneration of tissues, it is necessary to establish an active multidisciplinary discussion on the definition of shared ethical limits. This discussion would allow AM to fully reclaim its identity as a specialty that aims to improve patient well-being whilst maintaining respect for patient aesthetic harmony, the expertise of specialists who practice AM, the essential role of safety, and awareness of the importance of a confidential doctor−patient relationship.