The Italian emergency medical system between evidence and risk of corporatism: the "Bologna case". Part I: the evidence / Part II: medical ethics and law.

Abstract

Scientific issues. An effective pre-hospital emergency care needs trained health care professionals, technological and therapeutic resources, but not always the emergency systems performance is data-driven. There are three fundamental models of pre-hospital care. The first one (Anglo-American) is based on the professional paramedic provision of care. Another model (Franco-German) is built on the physician-led approach. The last one, derived from the franco-german model, is the nurse-led model described as the new profession in the pre-hospital care setting. Many studies compare the benefits of having physicians or nurses or paramedics on the field. The findings of this narrative literature review show that: 1) there is no a better model than the other; 2) the best performance depends on one hand on the expertise required case by case of those responding, on the other on the quality of dispatching process, contrary to what the Bologna's General Medical Council held; 3) regardless of the adopted model, the task shifting (the skills and expertise passed from physicians on other specialized health care workers) is considered around the world as the best way to balance health care demand and supply in the pre-hospital emergency setting. Professional ethics and legal issues. By means of the transformation of principles of medical ethics in rules binding for professionals, the code of medical ethics (CME) gains relevance within the legal system, especially through case law and disciplinary responsibility. Moreover, the CME is gaining growing attention, both at the normative and judicial levels, due to its ability to regulate important aspects of professional conduct, which may have consequences for medical practice and for the patient's fundamental rights. Notwithstanding this role, the interrelations between law and medical ethics, the binding value of the CME and the related position in the hierarchy of norms are still controversial, lacking a proper regulation and a proper set of safeguards measures. A disciplinary action against doctors acting outside the professional activities, namely as a council member proposing a legal act, must be based on solid grounds relating to the protection of fundamental rights. Such a disciplinary authority requires legal definitions, safeguards and judicial remedies beyond those being met at present. The analysis shows how specific elements and devices should still be taken into consideration from both procedural and content perspectives to shape a more coherent model of relationships between law and medical ethics.