Medical Involvement in Acts of Torture or Degrading Treatment of Human Beings: Forensic and Medical Reflections

The following chapter condenses the reflections about the legitimacy of torture, a theme that the authors hope to contribute to in the opening of a debate on this important issue for the future of medicine and for the goals that medicine sets for itself in our time. The topic of this article is relevant to the debate exacerbated by the tragic events of 2001. In the case of capture of terrorists in possession of information regarding imminent attacks, is it permissible to subject them to torture? In what situations and under what conditions is it possible? We will report on the requirements of the critics of the international ban and the justifications for their arguments. We will present the criticisms of those who defend the maintenance of the prohibition of torture. Similarly we will discuss the positions of doctors who are favorable and adverse to participation in procedures of torture

Is Evar Feasible in Challenging Aortic Neck Anatomies? A Technical Review and Ethical Discussion

Abstract: Background: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become an accepted alternative to open repair (OR) for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) despite “hostile” anatomies thatmay reduce its effectiveness. Guidelines suggest refraining fromEVAR in such circumstances, but in clinical practice, up to 44% of EVAR procedures are performed using stent grafts outside their instruction for use (IFU), with acceptable outcomes. Starting from this “inconsistency” between clinical practice and guidelines, the aim of this contribution is to report the technical results of the use of EVAR in challenging anatomies as well as the ethical aspects to identify the criteria by which the “best interest” of the patient can be set. Materials and Methods: A literature review on currently available evidence on standard EVAR using commercially available endografts in patients with hostile aortic neck anatomies was conducted. Medline using the PubMed interface and The Cochrane Library databases were searched from 1 January 2000 to 6May 2021, considering the following outcomes: technical success; need for additional procedures; conversion to OR; reintervention; migration; the presence of type I endoleaks; AAA-related mortality rate. Results: A total of 52 publications were selected by the investigators for a detailed review. All studies were either prospective or retrospective observational studies reporting the immediate, 30-day, and/or follow-up outcomes of standard EVAR procedures in patients with challenging neck anatomies. No randomized trials were identified. Fourteen different endo-grafts systems were used in the selected studies. A total of 45 studies reported a technical success rate ranging from 93 to 100%, and 42 the need for additional procedures (mean value of 9.04%). Results at 30 days: the incidence rate of type Ia endoleak was reported by 37 studies with a mean value of 2.65%; 31 studies reported a null migration rate and 32 a null conversion rate to OR; in 31 of the 35 studies that reported AAA-related mortality, the incidence was null. Mid-term follow-up: the incidence rate of type Ia endoleak was reported by 48 studies with a mean value of 6.65%; 30 studies reported a null migration rate, 33 a null conversion rate to OR, and 28 of the 45 studies reported that the AAA-related mortality incidence was null. Conclusions: Based on the present analysis, EVAR appears to be a safe and effective procedure—and therefore recommendable—even in the presence of hostile anatomies, in patients deemed unfit for OR. However, in order to identify and pursue the patient’s best interest, particular attention must be paid to the management of the patient’s informed consent process, which— in addition to being an essential ethical-legal requirement to legitimize the medical act—ensures that clinical data can be integrated with the patient’s personal preferences and background, beyond the therapeutic potential of the proposed procedures and what is generically stated in the guidelines

The Notion of Neutrality in Clinical Ethics Consultation

Clinical ethics consultation (CEC), as an activity that may be provided by clinical ethics committees and consultants, is nowadays a well-established practice in North America. Although it has been increasingly implemented in Europe and elsewhere, no agreement can be found among scholars and practitioners on the appropriate role or approach the consultant should play when ethically problematic cases involving conflicts and uncertainties come up. In particular, there is no consensus on the acceptability of consultants making recommendations, offering moral advice upon request, and expressing personal opinions. We translate these issues into the question of whether the consultant should be neutral when performing an ethics consultation. We argue that the notion of neutrality 1) functions as a hermeneutical key to review the history of CEC as a whole;2) may be enlightened by a precise assessment of the nature and goals of CEC;3) refers to the normative dimension of CEC. Here, we distinguish four different meanings of neutrality: a neutral stance toward the parties involved in clinical decision making, toward the arguments offered to frame the discussion, toward the values and norms involved in the case, and toward the outcome of decision making, that is to say the final decision and action that will be implemented. Lastly, we suggest a non-authoritarian way to intend the term "recommendation" in the context of clinical ethics consultation

Certification and evaluation of the clinical ethics consultant. A Proposal for Italy.

Clinical ethics, as a sub-discipline of bioethics, is subject to growing professionalization in North America, Europe and elsewhere. Since the goal of clinical ethics is the identification, analysis and resolution of ethical dilemmas and conflicts in health care settings, specific competencies for practitioners and criteria to evaluate them are strongly needed. Regarding clinical ethics consultation (CEC) many efforts have been made by American clinical ethicists and scholars to delineate the core knowledge and skills to perform it, to settle specific professional responsibilities and tasks and to identify the fundamental training and quality requirements that candidates and actual professionals should satisfy in order to serve as ethics consultants. Starting from the analysis of two meaningful international experiences, the one American and the other German, the paper discusses the process of certification of the clinical ethics consultant and encourages its implementation in the Italian context trying to outline a model which is suited to it

Public perceptions and expectations: disentangling the hope and hype of organoid research

Organoid technologies are rapidly advancing and hold great potential and hope for disease modeling and clinical translational research. Still, they raise a number of complex, ethical questions regarding their current and future use. Patient and public involvement is impor-tant in building public trust and helping to secure responsible conduct and valued innovations; nevertheless, research into patient and public perspectives on organoid technologies remains scarce. We report on a first public dialogue on organoid technologies through three cross-country deliberative workshops with a diverse group of stakeholders to identify their perceptions and concerns. Participants gener-ally support organoid technologies on the condition that responsible governance, ethical oversight, and sound informed consent procedures are in place. Yet, a broad set of potential concerns are identified, primarily concerning commercialization, healthcare access, and cerebral organoids. Participants' insights and recommendations can help inform researchers and ethics and policy bodies toward supporting responsible and ethical organoid approaches

Insight from an Italian Delphi Consensus on EVAR feasibility outside the instruction for use: the SAFE EVAR Study

Background: The SAfety and FEasibility of standard EVAR outside the instruction for use (SAFE-EVAR) Study was designed to define the attitude of Italian vascular surgeons towards the use of standard endovascular repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) outside the instruction for use (IFU) through a Delphi consensus endorsed by the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Vascolare ed Endovascolare - SICVE). Methods: A questionnaire consisting of 26 statements was developed, validated by an 18-member Advisory Board, and then sent to 600 Italian vascular surgeons. The Delphi process was structured in three subsequent rounds which took place between April and June 2023. In the first two rounds, respondents could indicate one of the following five degrees of agreement: 1) strongly agree; 2) partially agree; 3) neither agree nor disagree; 4) partially disagree; 5) strongly disagree; while in the third round only three different choices were proposed: 1) agree; 2) neither agree nor disagree; 3) disagree. We considered the consensus reached when ≥70% of respondents agreed on one of the options. After the conclusion of each round, a report describing the percentage distribution of the answers was sent to all the participants. Results: Two-hundred-forty-four (40.6%) Italian Vascular Surgeons agreed to participate the first round of the Delphi Consensus; the second and the third rounds of the Delphi collected 230 responders (94.3% of the first-round responders). Four statements (15.4%) reached a consensus in the first rounds. Among the 22 remaining statements, one more consensus (3.8%) was achieved in the second round. Finally, seven more statements (26.9%) reached a consensus in the simplified last round. Globally, a consensus was reached for almost half of the proposed statements (46.1%). Conclusions: The relatively low consensus rate obtained in this Delphi seems to confirm the discrepancy between Guideline recommendations and daily clinical practice. The data collected could represent the source for a possible guidelines' revision and the proposal of specific Good Practice Points in all those aspects with only little evidence available

A New Treatment Option in Incomplete Partition Type III: The Varese Bone-Air Stimulation (B.A.S.)

The incomplete partition type III is a severe cochlear malformation present in X-linked deafness. It is a rare, non-syndromic cause of severe to profound mixed hearing loss, often progressive. The complete absence of bony modiolus and the wide communication between the cochlea and the internal auditory canal make cochlear implantation challenging, with still no consensus on the management of these patients. To the best of our knowledge, no results have ever been published in the literature on the treatment of these patients with hybrid stimulation (bone and air). We present three cases in which this hybrid stimulation gave better audiological results then air stimulation alone. A literature review on audiological results of the current treatment options in children affected by IPIII malformation was conducted independently by two researchers. Ethical considerations on the treatment of these patients were conducted by the Bioethics department of the University of Insubria. In two of the patients, the bone-air stimulation, associated with prosthetic-cognitive rehabilitation, meant that surgery was avoided, obtaining similar communication performances of those present in the literature. We believe that, when the bone threshold appears partially preserved, a stimulation through the bone or hybrid modality, such as the Varese B.A.S. stimulation, should be attempted