Neurodegenerative diseases (NDs) represent one of the most important public health problems and concerns, as they are a growing cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, particularly in the elderly. Despite remarkable breakthroughs in our understanding of NDs, there has been little success in developing effective therapies. The use of natural products may offer great potential opportunities in the prevention and therapy of NDs; however, many clinical concerns have arisen regarding their use, mainly focusing on the lack of scientific support or evidence for their efficacy and patient safety. These clinical uncertainties raise critical questions from a bioethical and legal point of view, as considerations relating to patient decisional autonomy, patient safety, and beneficial or non-beneficial care may need to be addressed. This paper does not intend to advocate for or against the use of natural products, but to analyze the ethical framework of their use, with particular attention paid to the principles of biomedical ethics. In conclusion, the notable message that emerges is that natural products may represent a great promise for the treatment of many NDs, even if many unknown issues regarding the efficacy and safety of many natural products still remain.

In December 2017, Law 219/2017, ‘Provisions for informed consent and advance directives’, was approved in Italy. The law is the culmination of a year-long process and the subject of heated debate throughout Italian society. Contentious issues (advance directives, the possibility to refuse medical treatment, the withdrawal of medical treatment, nutrition and hydration) are addressed in the law. What emerges clearly are concepts such as quality of life, autonomy, and the right to accept or refuse any medical treatment – concepts that should be part of an optimal relationship between the patient and healthcare professionals. The law maximizes the value of the patient’s time to decide. Every patient is allowed to make choices for the present (consenting to or refusing current treatment) as well as for the future, conceived as a continuation of the present, and to decide what comes next, based on what he/she already knows. The law identifies three distinct but converging paths towards the affirmation of a care relationship based on reciprocal trust and respect: the possibility to consent to or refuse treatment, the shared care planning, and advance directives. The fundamental point to emerge from the new Italian law is that consensus is an essential connotation of the treatment relationship. Consensus is not limited to the acceptance/rejection of medical treatment but is ongoing. It is projected into the future through shared care planning and advance directives which act as tools for self-determination and the manifestation of the beliefs and preferences of persons unable to express their will. These principles are in line with the idea of appropriate care as evaluated from two different perspectives, one of scientific adequacy and the other commensurate with the individual’s resources, fragility, values, and beliefs. Surely, however, the new law is not the end of the matter on issues such as conscientious objection, which is deeply rooted within the Italian cultural and political debate. In this regard, healthcare institutions and policymakers will be called upon to develop and implement organizational policies aimed at the management of foreseeable conscientious objection in this field.

Healthcare-related homicidal cases are not novel within the medical–legal landscape, but investigations are often made difficult with the scarcity of material evidence related to the crime. For this reason, it is necessary to carefully analyze the clinical documentation and employ ancillary forensic resources such as radiology, histopathology, and toxicology. In the presented scenario, the observation of 14 deaths from abnormal bleeding in a First-Level Italian Hospital revealed the administration of massive doses of heparin by a nurse. On behalf of the Judicial Authority, a multidisciplinary medical team investigated the case through the following steps: a thorough review of the clinical documentation, exhumation of the bodies belonging to the deceased patients, performing PMCT and autopsy, and collecting tissue samples for histopathological, immunohistochemical, and toxicological investigations. All the analyzed cases have been characterized by the observation of fatal hemorrhagic episodes not explained with the clinical conditions of the patients, confirmed using autopsy observations and the histological demonstration of the vitality of the lesions. However, due to the limited availability of biological material for the toxicological analysis, the indirect evidence from hematological analyses in hospitalized patients was crucial in demonstrating heparin overdose and its link to the recorded deaths. The present scenario demonstrates the fundamental importance of a multidisciplinary approach to cases of judicial interest related to the healthcare context. Therefore, the illustrated methodologies can be interpreted as an operational framework for similar future cases.