Suchergebnisse

The scarcity of economic resources today is a fundamental problem in public healthcare. The importance of making well-founded choices for optimal resources allocation concerns also pharmacological treatments and is justified also on ethical grounds, besides the economic, political and/or medical considerations. In fact, a better management, also in economic sense, of the patient and sickness involves the possibility of offering an efficient treatment to all the sick, or at least to as many of them as possible. However, these considerations should always be subordinated to the ethical centrality of the patient, to the protection of his life, his health and his personal dignity, to the extent that life and health are priceless. The goal of ethics in pharmacoeconomics can be summarised in respect for the person, which must remain the end and reference of every therapeutic choice as well as every healthcare policy. The indispensable instruments for the realisation of the above objectives are, amongst others, those already highlighted but which demand further explanation: a) a suitable standard background/training and a multidisciplinary approach for optimising the evaluation procedures and increasing accuracy and verifiableness of the data; b) measures to contrast and disclose the conflict of interest for more transparency and credibility; c) a coherent evaluation of the ethical quality and humanness of the pharmacoeconomic analysis which requires a correct consideration of quality of life and a real respect for persons.

The scarcity of economic resources today is a fundamental problem in public healthcare. The importance of making well-founded choices for optimal resources allocation concerns also pharmacological treatments and is justified also on ethical grounds, besides the economic, political and/or medical considerations. In fact, a better management, also in economic sense, of the patient and sickness involves the possibility of offering an efficient treatment to all the sick, or at least to as many of them as possible. However, these considerations should always be subordinated to the ethical centrality of the patient, to the protection of his life, his health and his personal dignity, to the extent that life and health are priceless. The goal of ethics in pharmacoeconomics can be summarised in respect for the person, which must remain the end and reference of every therapeutic choice as well as every healthcare policy. The indispensable instruments for the realisation of the above objectives are, amongst others, those already highlighted but which demand further explanation: a) a suitable standard background/training and a multidisciplinary approach for optimising the evaluation procedures and increasing accuracy and verifiableness of the data; b) measures to contrast and disclose the conflict of interest for more transparency and credibility; c) a coherent evaluation of the ethical quality and humanness of the pharmacoeconomic analysis which requires a correct consideration of quality of life and a real respect for persons.

This article's authors delve into, and comment on, some of the key provisions within law no. 219, passed in 2017, which came into full effect in 2018. The legislation presents several innovative aspects: (a) communication time is equated to care; (b) patients may turn down lifesaving treatments, yet doctors must put in place all suitable support processes, from a psychological standpoint as well, in order to make sure that patients make informed decisions in full awareness; (c) refusal to treatment may be expressed prior to the onset of the disease making the patient incapable, as long as the advance directive is laid out by a mentally capable adult who has been provided with all relevant medical information available as to the consequence of a refusal to undergo a given treatment; (d) artificial nutrition and hydration are tantamount to treatment; thus, they may not be carried out and kept in place in absence of valid consent; (e) patients may appoint a healthcare proxy holder, tasked with interacting with doctors and caregivers and expressing consent or refusal; (f) patient will, whether current or advance, must be complied with even under emergency or urgency conditions, provided that clinical conditions and circumstances make it possible to acquire it; (g) doctors may disregard advance directives only when specifically provided for by the law; (h) patients may not demand treatment deemed to be illegal or running counter to ethical codes or scientific evidence. The new legislation, therefore, is meant to uphold the right to exercise self-determination as well as the patient's quality of life, yet ensuring that doctors remain fully capable of making the decisions that they are best positioned to. Summary: The Italian Parliament has for the first time regulated the issue of consent and refusal of healthcare treatments, whether currently expressed or advance. This article elaborates on recent Italian legislation that details a patient's right to consent to or refuse treatment in advance, including refusal of ...

"Introduction. The recent introduction of extremely effective drugs in treating diseases, but associated with exorbitant costs raised several issues in terms of distributive justice. However, in this debate justice is widely thought in intragenerational terms. The work will explore the concept of intergenerational health care justice, in particular the argument, often used to justify the introduction of this type of drugs, according to which the vast amount of money spent now will allow to have savings in the long run. The recent introduction of some drugs that are extremely effective in treating diseases but associated with exorbitant costs, raised several issues in terms of distributive justice. However, in this debate justice is widely thought in intragenerational terms. Methods: A review of key documents on intergenerational justice was conducted, followed by a nonsystematic review of peer-reviewed and gray literature. The existing material was analyzed and a draft manuscript was prepared and discussed. Some experts carried out the revision of the manuscript until consensus was reached. Results: The concept of intergenerational health care justice has never been well explored. From an intergenerational point of view, the argument – which is often supported by pharmaco-economic evaluations – according to which the vast amount of money spent now for this type of drugs will allow to have savings in the long run is not in itself coherent with the main theories of justice. Conclusions: Considerations that are extrinsic to the assumptions of the main theories of justice are needed in order to justify the argument above. "

"This work is aimed at critically illustring the eight-year experience of the Master in "Clinical Bioethics Consultation" (2013-2020). This advanced second-level Master was promoted in 2013 by the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart of Rome, and co-worked by other Italian clinical as well as academic institutions (University Campus Bio-medico of Rome, Insubria University of Varese, "Federico II" University of Naples, Lanza Foundation of Padua, Local Health and Social Care Unit n. 7 (ULSS) of Veneto Region, Treviso; Ospedale San Giovanni Calibita Fatebenefratelli – Isola Tiberina, Rome, and Italian Group for clinical ethics consultation (GIBCE)). To this aim, it first will discuss two points: on the one hand, an epistemological one, i.e. the justification of the activity of ethics consultant in clinical settings supported by the authors; on the other hand, a pedagogical one, i.e. the identification of the learning needs clinical bioethics gives birth to. The second part of the work will focus on the experience of the Master, explaining its basic features (objectives, methods, contents, evaluation tools, etc), offering a critical review, and identifying the challenges this initiative has to face in the next future. "