Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
italians rejected minority relativism
- carlo v bellieni (17 June 2005)
-
Revealing your prejudices
- Paul W Keeley (17 June 2005)
-
People must decide
- Giusto Giusti (17 June 2005)
-
Titles, impartiality and good journalism
- Massimo Milani (18 June 2005)
-
evidence and opinion
- Marco Cei (19 June 2005)
-
Medical associations supporting Italian ART law
- Felice Achilli (22 June 2005)
-
Or is this interpretation turned over?
- Anne M Williams (24 June 2005)
-
Some more accuracy
- Irina Haivas (24 July 2007)
-
Re: Some more accuracy
- Fabio Turone (25 July 2007)
-
Addendum Re: Re: Some more accuracy
- Fabio Turone (28 July 2007)
|
|
|||
|
carlo v bellieni, neonatologist university hospital, siena - italy
Send response to journal:
|
I'd say "75% of italians won", and not "italians failed...": this is misleading. The majority of italian people did not vote, and supported the present law, along with many non-catholic echologists and feminists (Enzo Tiezzi, Oriana Fallaci...), despite the big campaign of all (all!) media. Please, note that Mrs Prestigiacomo does not belong to Alleanza Nazionale Party. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Paul W Keeley, Consultant Palliative Physician Glasgow Royal Infirmary, G4 0SF
Send response to journal:
|
"Italians fail to overturn restrictive reproduction law" How about "Italians maintain proper controls over ethically sensitive practices" OR "Italians resist slippery slope"? Puts a different slant on things, doesn't it? Paul Keeley Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Giusto Giusti, Professor of Legal Medicina Rome 00133, via Montpellier 1
Send response to journal:
|
Sir. The letter of your correspondent from Italy about referendum on law 40/2004 on medically assisted procreation does not afford the simple theme of the popular participation to referendum. Only 1 in 4 voters effectively voted to modify this law, which needs really to be modified. In my opinion, contrasts with abortion law and the situation of about 30.000 frozen embryos should be preliminary decided. The popular wisdom did not accept ideas that cannot be fully understood in their consequences. In previous referenda of general and understandable social interest (e. g., abortion law, modifications to drug law, etc.) people voted in very high percentage. In this case, people did NOT vote in very high percentage, and I was among them. A student of mine, dr Stefano De Pasquale Ceratti, wrote a chapter on this topic, and the chapter was published prior of any decision about referendum. The matter of the beginning of human life must be thoroughly studied from the ethical point of view, and explained to people on all respects. Fortunately enough, people and Parliament decide, not scientists. Literature. De Pasquale Ceratti S., Chapter CCXVII, La procreazione medicalmente assistita, pp. 83- 136, in Trattato di Medicina legale e Scienze affini (G. Giusti ed.), CEDAM, Padova 2005. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Massimo Milani, Medical Director Milan
Send response to journal:
|
I am quite surprised by the Turone’s title (“Italians fail to overturn restrictive reproduction law”). I guess it is frankly misleading. It seems that actually the majority of Italian people want to cancel this “restrictive”(?) (This is an opinion of Mr. Turone) law but for some “mysterious” and “obscurantist” reasons this did not happen. I am Italian and I decided, as more than 74% of Italian people, do not participate to the vote in view to not achieve the quorum, using a strategy that our present rules of the referendum clearly state. I took this decision for ethical reasons only, not just for my religious belief and particularly not in view to obey to the Catholic Church appeal. The Turone article, instead, seems to suggest that the results of the Italian referendum should be ascribed to integralism or to “low level of education” (sic!!) of the people who decided for abstention. On which objective data Turone decided that the results of the referendum are due to exclusively by a “narrow-minded” religious behaviour? If this was the case why other referenda, on divorce or abortion, obtained results not in line with the Vatican view? Perhaps Turone thinks that the reason of this result could be ascribed probably to the fact that there are now too few “cattolici adulti” (smart Catholics) as Mr Prodi, the left party premier, has so generously instructed us, “poor stupid Catholics”? In addition, the article reported only declaration of people (Mrs Bonino, Mrs Prestigiacomo, Mr Sunde) or institution contrary to the present law: I think this is not a correct and impartial way to present such complicated issue. It is not correct to state that the strategy of the Church, but also the Committee against the referendum, was simply to “convince that the issue were too complicated to be understood and decided by popular vote” (again: probably 74% of Italian population is too stupid to understand so complicated matter!!). Turone forget that, in fact, the principal debate was if the embryo could have already all the right of a living person or not: it is possible to have different opinion on that but this is not a “complicated” issue, Mr Turone. Sunde’s statement that “Vatican stands against biomedical research (!) and treatment (!!)” is frankly a rash opinion: again it is really a pity that the article did not report different opinion on this issue. Finally, the article of Turone has also several mistakes: · Actually the percentage of voting people in this referendum was 25.5% (“Avvenire” Italian newspaper, June 15, 2005) (not 25.9% as stated in the Turone’s article) (numbers are numbers) · It is not true the reproduction law was approved by centre right government only. This law obtained also the approval of several deputies of the center-left parties. · Mr Rutelli has never been, so far, an Italian Prime Minister. · Mrs Prestigiacomo is a deputy of Forza Italia party not a member of Alleanza Nazionale Massimo Milani MD Milan, Italy Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Marco Cei, haematologist 57124, Livorno, Italy
Send response to journal:
|
Sir, the article from Turone in the current issue of the BMJ deserves some comments. As a regular reader, I wish to know if this article is somewhat representative of the journal policy, or whether it reflects only the author's opinion; since dr. Turone seems to have no specific reason to write on this theme (PubMed search), the article, who is by no means objective, would have been better placed in a corrispondence or opinion section of a such authoritative medical journal. Moreover, he cited some popular scientists to support - without any prove - that "most of the scientific community sided with the referendum". To my knowledge, neither Rita Levi Montalcini nor Renato Dulbecco have worked in fertility research. To listen Nobel laureates to speak in favour of the research is as obvious as to listen Oscar Prize winners to apologize in favour of cinema. Dr. Veronesi has served as minister of health of the previous centre left government coalition, so he has a clear conflict of interest on this topic. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Felice Achilli, Direttore U.O. Cardiologia, ospedale Lecco
Send response to journal:
|
Sir, I write on behalf of Medicina e Persona, an association of more than 3.000 Italian nurses and physicians, which supported the present Italian law on assisted fertilisation (AF) along with other associations of hundred of Italian researchers (e.g. Scienza e Vita). We were astonished by reading on the current issue of BMJ Fabio Turoni’s paper entitled “Italians fail to overturn restrictive reproduction law” (1). We were not surprised, because we read some similar papers by the same author (2-4) or by S. Arie (5-7) in your journal: in particular one (5) contained so many errors that even the former Italian Health Minister, Gerolamo Sirchia, asked BMJ to correct them (8). Even in the present paper, an absence of a thorough analysis and knowledge of Italian issues appears (e.g. Mrs Prestigiacomo does not belong to AN party). We wonder why such an important journal as BMJ cannot be objective in reporting Italian data, avoiding to mirror only the ideas expressed by Italian press. Italian media made a huge campaign against the present law on AF and were defeated not by the church, but by common sense and by millions of people who understood that human life is not a means for some else’s health. The Catholic Church stands among the winners, but many non religious physicians, ecologists and feminists joined the battle to support the present law. After the referendum, almost 80% (75% abstained and 2.5-5% voted NO; only 20-25% voted YES) of Italian people were defined “ignorant”, “obscurantist”, “lazy”, by Italian opinion-leaders who had supported the referendum against the AF law, and by people like the representant of the Radical party Mr Turone interviewed. We cannot accept it. Many physicians like us chose not to vote; many made conferences to explain the reasons why a physician should preserve human life since its appearance, and found thousands of people listening, participating and approving. You can agreed or not, but this is the Italian news, and your journal cannot affirm to be well-balanced if it defines the decision of 80% of Italian people a failure, and if it reports only the angry reactions of the losers. Many physicians, physiotherapists and nurses are catholic, and with many non-catholic colleagues respect human life since its embryonic beginning: do BMJ believe they are second-class professionals? Is there no room for their opinion in the journal? Felice Achilli, MD President of Medicina e Persona REFERENCES 1. Turone F: Italians fail to overturn restrictive reproduction law. BMJ 2005;330:1405 2. Turone F. Italians celebrate success of treatment no longer legal in Italy. BMJ. 2004 Sep 18;329(7467):643. 3. Turone F. New law forces Italian couple with genetic disease to implant all their IVF embryos. BMJ. 2004 Jun 5;328(7452):1334. 4. Turone F. Italy to pass new law on assisted reproduction. BMJ. 2004 Jan 3;328(7430):9. 5. Arie S. Row brews over Italian abortion proposals. BMJ. 2004 Aug 21;329(7463):418. 6. Arie S. Woman forced to have three embryos implanted is allowed fetal reduction to save her life. BMJ. 2004 Jul 10;329(7457):71. 7. Arie S. Crusading for change. BMJ. 2005 Apr 23;330(7497):926. 8. Girolamo Sirchia: Comments of the Italian Minister of Health. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7463/418-a#72300 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Anne M Williams, GP Scotland 140 Thurston Rd G52 2AZ
Send response to journal:
|
In this article about limitations to fertility treatments, Arne Sunde was quoted as being suprised that The Vatican was intervening in Italian Politics. Where human rights and the defense of the innocent is concerned, the church has always spoken clearly. If we were to overturn the argument, it would seem that many governments are intervening in the intimacies of human relations, reproduction and the beginning new life in an unprecedented way. Ethics and morals have been explored, studied and explained by the Church throughout its history, in order to guide the faithful through the many pitfalls of life. Suddenly it seems that these new reproductive techniques, which are very controversial and unnacceptable to many taxpayers, are taking the place of, and overturning basic human rights. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Irina Haivas, Master student, MSc International Health Policy London School of Economics
Send response to journal:
|
Mr Turone's article cites the results of a survey by the Observatory of Procreative Tourism set up by Cecos Italia, an inter-clinic association. The figures mentioned by Mr Turone are, however, innacurate. The survey above found an increase in the overall number of couples, from 1066 before the law to 4173 in 2006. The highest increase was in the 7 Spanish clinics included in the survey, where the number of Italian couples rose from 60 prior to the law, to 1356 after the law. SOme aspects related to the survery should be raised, however. First, the reporting is not entirely clear: The survey report does not mention the exact time frame in which these numbers were registered. For instance, are the numbers post-law for 2006 only, or for the period 2004-2006? Also, there may be methodoloigcal concerns - for example the survey included 27 clinics (in 10 countries), but the selection criteria for these clinics is not clearly explained. The general finding of the survey, i.e. the fact that reproductive tourism from Italy to other coutrnies has been increasing in the post-law period, is most likely true. What is untrue is the extent of this. Some caution in interpreting the results may be thus recommended, and limitations of the survery may be worth mentioning. The original report can be found at: http://www.cecos.it/sezioni/eventi/osservatorio.pdf. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Fabio Turone, editor Agency Zoe of scientific and medical Information, Milan, Italy
Send response to journal:
|
I was troubled by this message, because in the cited article I made two serious errors (concerning Italian politics) that were already spotted and corrected. I apologize again for that. As for the point of this latest response, I sometimes have to report about surveys of modest scientific value, that for some reason are important because they shed a bit of light on obscure matters, so I agree that the study has limitations (in such cases I try to be as accurate and clear as possible, of course within the space assigned, mostly devoted to the real issue of the news article). Still, I think nobody should be held responsible for not citing in 2005 data about 2006 (those you refer to). Competing interests: I am the author of the article |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Fabio Turone, editor Agency Zoe of scientific and Medical Information, Milan, Italy
Send response to journal:
|
For additional clarity: the report I wrote for the BMJ about the 2006 survey on Procreative Tourism can be read at:
Italians are forced to go abroad for assisted reproduction
Competing interests: I wrote the news article |
|||