Background and objective: Telemedicine or telehealth services has been increasingly practiced in the recent years. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine turned into and indispensable service in order to avoid contagion between healthcare professionals and patients, involving a growing number of medical disciplines. Nevertheless, at present, several ethical and legal issues related to the practice of these services still remain unsolved and need adequate regulation. This narrative review will give a synthesis of the main ethical and legal issues of telemedicine practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Material and Methods: A literature search was performed on PubMed using MeSH terms: Telemedicine (which includes Mobile Health or Health, Mobile, mHealth, Telehealth, and eHealth), Ethics, Legislation/Jurisprudence, and COVID-19. These terms were combined into a search string to better identify relevant articles published in the English language from March 2019 to September 2021. Results: Overall, 24 out of the initial 85 articles were considered eligible for this review. Legal and ethical issues concerned important aspects such as: informed consent (information about the risks and benefits of remote therapy) and autonomy (87%), patient privacy (78%) and confidentiality (57%), data protection and security (74%), malpractice and professional liability/integrity (70%), equity of access (30%), quality of care (30%), the professional–patient relationship (22%), and the principle of beneficence or being disposed to act for the benefit of others (13%). Conclusions: The ethical and legal issues related to the practice of telehealth or telemedicine services still need standard and specific rules of application in order to guarantee equitable access, quality of care, sustainable costs, professional liability, respect of patient privacy, data protection, and confidentiality. At present, telemedicine services could be only used as complementary or supplementary tools to the traditional healthcare services. Some indications for medical providers are suggested.

Three-dimensional bioprinting is a rapidly evolving technology that holds the promise of addressing the increasing demand for organs, tissues, and personalized medicine. By employing computer-aided design and manufacturing processes, 3D bioprinting allows for the precise deposition of living cells, biomaterials, and biochemicals to create functional human tissues and organs. The potential applications of this technology are vast, including drug testing and development, disease modeling, regenerative medicine, and ultimately, organ transplantation. However, as with any groundbreaking technology, 3D bioprinting presents several ethical, legal, and regulatory concerns that warrant careful consideration. As the technology progresses towards clinical applications, it is essential to address these challenges and establish appropriate frameworks to guide the responsible development of 3D bioprinting. This article, utilizing the Arksey and O’Malley scoping review model, is designed to scrutinize the bioethical implications, legal and regulatory challenges, and medico-legal issues that are intertwined with this rapidly evolving technology.

At the dawn of the fourth industrial revolution, the healthcare industry is experiencing a momentous shift in the direction of increasingly pervasive technologization of care. If, up until the 2000s, imagining healthcare provided by robots was a purely futuristic fantasy, today, such a scenario is in fact a concrete reality, especially in some countries, such as Japan, where nursing care is largely delivered by assistive and social robots in both public and private healthcare settings, as well as in home care. This revolution in the context of care, already underway in many countries and destined to take place soon on a global scale, raises obvious ethical issues, related primarily to the progressive dehumanization of healthcare, a process which, moreover, has undergone an important acceleration following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has made it necessary to devise new systems to deliver healthcare services while minimizing interhuman contact. According to leading industry experts, nurses will be the primary users of healthcare robots in the short term. The aim of this study is to provide a general overview, through a scoping review approach, of the most relevant ethical issues that have emerged in the nursing care field in relation to the increasingly decisive role that service robots play in the provision of care. Specifically, through the adoption of the population-concept-context framework, we formulated this broad question: what are the most relevant ethical issues directly impacting clinical practice that arise in nursing care delivered by assistive and social robots? We conducted the review according to the five-step methodology outlined by Arksey and O’Malley. The first two steps, formulating the main research question and carrying out the literature search, were performed based on the population-context-concept (PCC) framework suggested by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Starting from an initial quota of 2,328 scientific papers, we performed an initial screening through a computer system by eliminating duplicated and non-English language articles. The next step consisted of selection based on a reading of the titles and abstracts, adopting four precise exclusion criteria: articles related to a nonnursing environment, articles dealing with bioethical aspects in a marginal way, articles related to technological devices other than robots, and articles that did not treat the dynamics of human-robot relationships in depth. Of the 2,328 titles and abstracts screened, we included 14. The results of the 14 papers revealed the existence of nonnegligible difficulties in the integration of robotic systems within nursing, leading to a lively search for new theoretical ethical frameworks, in which robots can find a place; concurrent with this exploration are the frantic attempts to identify the best ethical design system applicable to robots who work alongside nurses in hospital wards. In the final part of the paper, we also proposed considerations about the Italian nursing context and the legal implications of nursing care provided by robots in light of the Italian legislative panorama. Regarding future perspectives, this paper offers insights regarding robot engagement strategies within nursing.

Background: Over the past few years, an emerging number of new psychoactive substances (NPSs) entered the illicit market. NPSs are designed to resemble the effects of classical drugs of abuse, reinforcing their effects and duration. Among the most abused NPS, synthetic cannabinoids are cannabinoid receptor agonists (SCRAs) that mimic the effect of the main psychotropic phytocannabinoid Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Methods: We herein reviewed the international literature to provide available information on the newest SCRAs generation. Results: Compared to the previous SCRAs generations, the structures of the last generation result in increased affinity for and efficacy at cannabinoid CB¹ receptors, which are thought to be mainly responsible for the psychoactive effects of THC and its analogues. Accordingly, these more potent cannabimimetic effects may increase the number of adverse reactions such as neurological disorders (e.g., psychosis, agitation, irritability, paranoia, confusion, and anxiety), psychiatric episodes (e.g., hallucinations, delusions, self-harm), other physical conditions (e.g., tachycardia, hypertension, arrhythmia, chest pain, nausea, vomiting, and fever) and deaths. In the last decade, more than a hundred SCRAs from different chemical classes emerged on the illicit web market. SCRAs have been thoroughly studied: they were physico-chemically characterized, and pharmaco-toxicological characteristics were investigated. The last SCRAs generations include increasingly potent and toxic compounds, posing a potential health threat to consumers. Conclusion: From November 2017 to February 2021, at least 20 new “fourth-generation” SCRAs were formally reported to international drug agencies. Our understanding of the neurotoxicity of these compounds is still limited due to the lack of global data, but their potency and their toxicity are likely higher than those of the previous generations.

Autopsy examination, the gold standard for defining causes of death, is often difficult to apply in certain health care settings, especially in developing countries. The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated difficulties in terms of implementing autopsy examinations have made the need for alternative means of determining causes of death even more evident. One of the most interesting alternatives to the conventional autopsy is the verbal autopsy, a tool that originated in Africa and Asia in the 1950s and consists of a structured interview with the deceased’s family members concerning the symptoms manifested by the person and the circumstances of death. In the early 1990s, the first doubts emerged about the validity of verbal autopsies, especially about the real reliability of the cause of death identified through this tool. The objective of the review was to identify studies that had assayed the validity of verbal autopsies through a rigorous comparison of the results that emerged from it with the results of conventional autopsies. When starting from an initial pool of 256 articles, only 2 articles were selected for final review. These are the only two original research articles in which a verbal autopsy validation process was performed by employing the full diagnostic autopsy as the gold standard. The two papers reached opposite conclusions, one suggesting adequate validity of verbal autopsy in defining the cause of death and the other casting serious doubts on the real applicability of this tool. Verbal autopsy undoubtedly has extraordinary potential, especially in the area of health and demographic surveillance, even considering the implementation that could result from the use of artificial intelligence and deep learning. However, at present, there appears to be a lack of solid data to support the robust reliability of this tool in defining causes of death.