In Italy, Law 413/1993 states that public and private Italian Institutions, including academic faculties, are obliged to fully inform workers and students about their right to conscientious objection to scientific or educational activities involving animals, hereafter written as “animal CO”. However, little monitoring on the faculties’ compliance with this law has been performed either by the government or other institutional bodies. Based on this premise, the authors have critically reviewed the existing data and compared them with those emerging from their own investigation to discuss limitations and inconsistencies. The results of this investigation revealed that less than half of Italian academic faculties comply with their duty to inform on animal CO. Non-compliance may substantially affect the right of students to make ethical choices in the field of animal ethics and undermines the fundamental right to express their own freedom of thought. The Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research, ethics committees and animal welfare bodies should cooperate to make faculties respect this law. Further research is needed to better understand the reasons for the current trend, as well as to promote the enforcement of Law 413/1993 with particular regard to information on animal CO.

On this perspective, when the codes of medical ethics are worked out by physicians, they could be considered as wrongly titled medical etiquettes. This consideration could regard current codes of medical ethics, that remain faithful to tradition and that would more probably be codes of medical etiquette with a wrong title.

The aim of the present paper was to investigate the fundamental ethical issues of Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) on patients remaining in Persistent Vegetative State (PVS). First, the purpose of this analysis was to discuss the nature of this intervention in order to classify it such as an ordinary clinical practice, or otherwise as an extraordinary clinical practice or as experimental research. Second, ethical issues, criticisms, and methodological issues of this intervention, also in the future perspectives, are discussed, attempting to identify who could give informed consent for a patient in PVS.

At an ethical level, rigorous debate on the CMD is indispensable, in order to update its specific principles and to make it a real moral normative document. At a legislative level, there is a possible contradiction between a legal system that does not take into account the CMD, but which then attributes significant importance to the violation of its rules.