The debate in Bioethics Cost of health benefit. Is only a communication problem?

Main Article Content

Giuseppe Batimelli, Dr.

Abstract




It was bringing up and prevail, in some government decisions, the communication to the patients and his relatives about health benefit’s costs by the Italian health system. The National Bioethics Committee’s stance advised against financial communication of the treatment’s costs, unless it has been requested by the patient. At the bottom of this problem there are utilitaristic and pragmatic criteria that produce detriment against the fair valuation of an- cient, ill or handicapped person. These criteria propel the me- aning of good like the biggest commodity and smaller pain. That situation influences more and more social principles like common good and public interest. The central point of this work is the va- lue and respect for the human life and the appropriate considera- tion of quality of life.




Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Batimelli, G. (2021). The debate in Bioethics: Cost of health benefit. Is only a communication problem?. Medicina Y Ética, 25(2), 203–214. Retrieved from https://publicaciones.anahuac.mx/index.php/bioetica/article/view/705
Section
Articles
Author Biography

Giuseppe Batimelli, Dr., Italian Catholic Physicians Association

Internist, Specialist in Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, Specialist in Endocrinology, National Vice President for Southern Italy of the Association of Italian Catholic Doctors

References

1 COMITATO NAZIONALE PER LA BIOETICA. Sulla comunicazione da parte del Servizio Sanitario Nazionale ai pazienti dei costi delle prestazioni sanitarie (28 de septiem- bre de 2012). Roma: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Dipartimento per l'Informazione e l'Editoria; 2012: 3 (acceso del 15.05.2013, en: http:// www.govemo.it/bioeticalpareri_abstract/7.%20Quesito_Balduzzi20092012.pdf).
2 BENTHAM J. An introduction to the principles of moral and legislation (1789). tr. it. Introduzione ai Principi della morale e della legislazione. Torino: UTET; 1998.
3 RESCHER N. Distributive Justice. Indianapolis, New York: Bobbs-Merril; 1966: 12. 4 PONTARA G. Breviario per un'etica quotidiana. Milano: Nuova Pratiche Editrice; 1998: 22.
5 SGRECCIA E. Manuale di Bioetica. VoI. II. Aspetti medico-sociali. Milano: Vita e Pensiero; 2002: 573, referido por ANGELL M. The Doctor as double agent. Kenne- dy Institute of Ethics Journal 1993; 3: 279-286.
6 LUCIONI C, RAVASIO R. Come valutare i risultati di uno studio farmaco economi- co? Pharmco-Economics-Italian Research Artcles 2004; 6: 121-130.
7 SULLIVAN R, PEPPERCORN J, SIKORA K et al. Delivering affordable cancer care in highincome countries. The Lancet Oncology 2011; 12 (10): 933-980.