The clarifications regarding an opinion published in Corriere Salute
Following the publication in Corriere Salute on 29 September of an opinion by Sandro Spinsanti on the topic “Assisted suicide and Ethics Committee”, we receive from the Luca Coscioni Association and we are happy to publish a clarification from Dr. Mario Riccio, head of resuscitation in Casalmaggiore (CR ). Below is the relative comment by Professor Spinsanti
The clarification of Dr. Mario Riccio
Professor Spinsanti is an authority on bioethics. Subject that he has taught in various Italian universities both in humanistic and scientific faculties, he has been a member of the National Bioethics Committee, of several hospital ethics committees, director of an authoritative institute of humanities. often difficult, sometimes in my humble opinion impossible – in the approach to bioethics. But what he writes on the pages of the Corriere Salute of 29 us. it is questionable It starts from a true and well-known consideration: the choices in bioethics are divisive. Every choice in medicine is, both for the patient and for the healthcare professional. Decide whether to terminate your life because it is deemed unbearable or become pregnant, or decide who to assign the last bed in intensive care – remember the shortage of respirators in the various Covid waves? – these are all tragic choices. Indeed, as the German moral philosopher Jurgen Habermas says about ethical choices in medicine, “doctors will find themselves making a tragic decision, because in any case it is immoral”. But you still have to choose. Not deciding is more immoral than any other decision. Then the article tackles the issue of ethics committees by arguing “we do not seek undue shortcuts by inventing committees that, in the name of ethics, take on the weight of decisions”. Now, the committees to which he refers are the result of the express decision of the Constitutional Court – which does not appear to be a party institution – which in the well-known Cappato / DjFabo sentence are indicated as bodies that must give an exclusively consultative opinion on the patient’s request. to be assisted in suicide. However, the applicant must have precise conditions, which in my opinion are already very restrictive. Since I was the doctor who collaborated – with the Luca Coscioni association – on the first case of assisted suicide in Italy, I can testify to the accurate work carried out by the Ethics Committee of the Marche – the patient’s region – called to carry out the task of verify. The Committee, for the part of the technical verification, made use of a commission made up of about twenty professionals. No “ethics monopoly” is reserved for clinical ethics committees, as argued by Professor Spinsanti. The sentence of the Constitutional Court did not in fact confer any mandate in this sense, and it should have been possible as it is evident. The Council recognized that – under certain very specific conditions of the applicant – assisting suicide can no longer be considered a crime. Some doctors – including the undersigned – also consider it a moral duty and an objective that the doctor must give himself in the face of the new conditions of life that modern medicine can create.
The answer of Professor Sandro Spinsanti
We start from a fundamental agreement: we are convinced that no institution, neither religious nor secular, can claim the monopoly of ethics. There are several thought organizations that present themselves under the sign of ethics: National Committee, Consulta, Regional Commissions. Of course, they don’t have such a monopoly either. The Constitutional Court has laudably established rules and procedures that accompany the use of medically assisted suicide. The caveat contained in the reflection I submitted to Corriere Salute stems from the fear that, in the simplification that occurs in public opinion, the message is passed that the ethics of a procedure arises from the legitimacy of the procedure itself, as it comes from a ” committee “. Simplifying: “It is ethical because a committee has authorized it.” It is in this context that it should be remembered that clinical ethics committees have an advisory purpose. Useful, often precious; but without replacing the ethical judgment and conscience of citizens and health professionals. Therefore, consultancy is welcome, where all the skills play their role. However, avoiding the simplification that makes legitimacy and ethics coincide, and ethics in the clinical setting with the authorization of a committee. Precisely because we have great regard for ethics, we would not want it reduced to an administrative procedure entrusted to a committee.
October 1, 2022 (change October 1, 2022 | 09:33)
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED
#role #ethics #committee #assisted #suicide #positions #Mario #Riccio #Sandro #Spinsanti