[Legal resposability of vaccinating doctor]

The legal responsibility of the vaccinating doctor is one of the central issues in the current setting of the Covid-19 pandemic. The aim of this statement is to outline the profiles of the medical legal liability, with a focus on the figure of the vaccinating physician, in criminal, civil, and disciplinary terms, based on the Italian legislation in force. The vaccinating doctor responds for his work in the field of vaccination in the same way as any other health service should perform (diagnostic, therapeutic, etc.). Helpful in this context is the adoption of the L. 76/2021; it was developed to find a balance between safeguarding the person privacy and greater guarantees for the doctor. This law introduces a criminal shield that can put a limit to litigation, curbing the phenomenon of so-called defensive medicine. The climate of uncertainty and fear of legal repercussions for the doctors, and the constant updating and redefinition of the indications of operability in the vaccination campaigns, underline the need to focus on the knowledge of the responsibilities and the safeguard of the vaccinating doctors. In addition to the regulatory cornerstones, the statement also addresses the issue of informed consent and the role of the occupational doctor as a central figure in the vaccination campaign in the workplace.

Liability of Health Care Professionals and Institutions During COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy: Symposium Proceedings and Position Statement

BACKGROUND

On May 12, 2020, a symposium titled "Liability of healthcare professionals and institutions during COVID-19 pandemic" was held in Italy with the participation of national experts in malpractice law, hospital management, legal medicine, and clinical risk management. The symposium's rationale was the highly likely inflation of criminal and civil proceedings concerning alleged errors committed by health care professionals and decision makers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its aim was to identify and discuss the main issues of legal and medicolegal interest and thus to find solid solutions in the spirit of preparedness planning.

METHODS

There were 5 main points of discussion: (A) how to judge errors committed during the pandemic because of the application of protocols and therapies based on no or weak evidence of efficacy, (B) whether hospital managers can be considered liable for infected health care professionals who were not given adequate personal protective equipment, (C) whether health care professionals and institutions can be considered liable for cases of infected inpatients who claim that the infection was transmitted in a hospital setting, (D) whether health care institutions and hospital managers can be considered liable for the hotspots in long-term care facilities/care homes, and (E) whether health care institutions and hospital managers can be considered liable for the worsening of chronic diseases.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Limitation of the liability to the cases of gross negligence (with an explicit definition of this term), a no-fault system with statal indemnities for infected cases, and a rigorous methodology for the expert witnesses were proposed as key interventions for successfully facing future proceedings.

Risk of preneoplastic and neoplastic events in operated oral leukoplakias

We retrospectively analysed 167 consecutive patients with oral leukoplakias operated on by CO2 laser resection in the Day Hospital of the Istituto Nazionale Tumori in Milan from January 1981 to December 1988, with post-operative histological examination negative for cancer. Within 5 years there were 69 patients with at least one unfavourable event. First unfavourable events were: 31 local relapses, 27 new leukoplakias, 5 oral carcinomas and 6 other neoplasms elsewhere. To identify possible prognostic factors we recorded age, sex and history of previous oral leukoplakias or head and neck cancers; also number, site, size and type of lesion; as well as tobacco and alcohol consumption and oral hygiene. The Cox regression model was employed to compare disease-free survival between different patient groups, both by univariate and multivariate analysis. From this analysis it emerges that age of operated patients and size of resected lesion are significantly predictive for development of relapses, new leukoplakias and carcinomas.

Fenretinide (4-HPR) in chemoprevention of oral leukoplakia

A controlled clinical trial has been underway at the Istituto Nazionale Tumori (INT) of Milan since 1988. The goal of the trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of fenretinide (4-HPR) in preventing relapses, new localizations, and carcinomas in patients with benign postoperative diagnoses who have been surgically treated for oral leukoplakias. This paper presents the design and the preliminary results of this study. To date, 137 patients have been randomized, following surgical excision of oral leukoplakia, to receive either 200 mg 4-HPR daily for 52 weeks or no intervention. Twenty local relapses or new localizations have occurred so far in the control group and 9 in the 4-HPR group. Seven patients have interrupted the intervention because of toxicity. No impaired dark adaptation has been observed. We conclude that 4-HPR is well-tolerated and appears to be effective in preventing relapses and new localizations during the treatment period.

Prevention of local relapses and new localisations of oral leukoplakias with the synthetic retinoid fenretinide (4-HPR). Preliminary results

This paper analyses preliminary results of a randomised chemoprevention trial in patients surgically treated for oral leukoplakia started in 1988 at the Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan with the synthetic retinoid N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)-retinamide (4-HPR). To date 115 patients have been randomised, after surgical excision of oral leukoplakia, to receive 200 mg 4-HPR daily for 52 weeks versus no intervention. 80 patients completed the 1-year intervention, 41 in the control group and 39 in the 4-HPR group. During this period 12 local relapses or new lesions occurred in the control group and three in the 4-HPR group. Only 5 patients interrupted the intervention because of toxicity. No impaired dark adaptation was observed. It is concluded that 4-HPR is well tolerated and seems efficacious in preventing relapses and new localisations during the treatment period. This promising trend needs further confirmation.