ABSTRACT

In this number we are publishing three articles around end of life issues. All citizens of the world that if in any of our countries, Euthanasia has not been legally approved, or de-penalized yet know it, it will soon become. As it is the cheapest way to deal with the problem caused by the aging of population, due to the baby boost demographic trend. Iannone, Lerro, Casale and Sacchini, show the creativity and possibilities of Palliative Care through the Antea Bioethics Committee, specially focusing on the various functions of medical personnel, and family members. All this in the particularly sensitive situation around palliative care and pain therapy.

The article» The temptation of neonatal euthanasia in the management of seriously compromised infants» written by Roberta Spola we can read that even if the development of advanced technologies has resulted in a surge of intensive care and assistance of extremely preterm newborns with severe diseases, as to move the survival limit. At the same time, it has made its way in recent years a eugenic attitude towards so-called life-limiting illnesses.

Several issues arise the questions of treating or stop treatment as well as the importance of parentsWe also have two articles on research ethics. The first is «A new limit for investigation on human embryos? » written by Dino Moltisanti. It turns out to be one of the most useful articles that any personalistic bioethicist should need to read, to know scientific arguments about the human personality of the embryo. The article shows the weakness of the criteria of the so-called pre-embryo and the arbitrary setting of the 14-day limit.

This poses the question, on where to establish the new limit? Everything is a succession of stages of a continuous and independent process. There is no difference an embryo moral quality, related to his age. The selection and experimentation in human embryos must be totally prohibited, to respect their inalienable intrinsic dignity.

«Putting health in the marketplace. Ethical issues about providing online health risk information», by Francesca Marin talks about the FDA’s approval to market genetic tests directly to consumers, without supervision of healthcare professionals. The idea is that informing customers of their genetic susceptibility may motivate them to change their health-related behavior, reducing the risk of the disease’s onset.

Actually, besides other ways of getting access to health information and services through internet, direct-to-consumer genetic tests fosters a consumerist approach to healthcare. But the article discusses if it is a good for the patient, addressing problems with clinical validity as well as their implications for healthcare systems.

Secondly, ethical concerns regarding putting health in the marketplace will be analyzed by examining the progressive shift from healthcare professional-patient fiduciary relationship to provideruser consumerist relationship.

At last we are publishing an article that with the abortion example analyzes different medical oaths. That is the paper written by a group of authors from Argentina Rancich; Merino; Aruanno; Pérez; Donato; Gelpi. They found out that while ancient and medieval oaths explicitly prohibit abortion, contemporary oaths are ambiguous on the topic. Contemporary oaths use ambiguous terms, often leaving the commit We hope you enjoy reading this interesting number of the journal.

Martha Tarasco MD PhD

Editor