[Prioritization of health resources in contexts of scarcity. SESPAS Report 2022]. / Priorización de recursos sanitarios en contextos de escasez. Informe SESPAS 2022.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a clinical challenge, but also a legal and bioethical one. These three fundamental pillars are developed in the approach to prioritizing health resources in pandemic, clinical criteria, corresponding legal framework and applicable ethical principles. Initially, clinical criteria were applied to identify patients with the best survival prognosis, combining a clinical evaluation and the use of short-term and long-term prognostic variables. But the decision to prioritize the care of one patient over another has a legal-political burden, which poses a risk of falling into discrimination since fundamental rights are at stake. The prioritization criteria must be based on principles that reflect as a vehicle philosophy that which we have constitutionally assumed as a social and democratic State of Law, which did not respond to utilitarianism but to personalism. Any philosophy of resource distribution must bear in mind the scientific and constitutional perspective and, with them, those of fundamental rights and bioethical principles. In the prioritization of resources, ethical principles must be consolidated such as respect for the human dignity, the principle of necessity (equal need, equal access to the resource), the principle of equity (which advises prioritizing the most vulnerable population groups), transparency (fundamental in society's trust) and the principle of reciprocity (which requires protecting the sectors of the population that take more risks), among others.

Should human germ line editing be allowed? Some suggestions on the basis of the existing regulatory framework.

The application of genetic editing techniques for the prevention or cure of disease is a highly promising tool for the future of humanity. However, its implementation contains a number of ethical and legal challenges that should not be underestimated. On this basis, some sectors have already asked for a veto on any intervention that modifies the human germ line, while supporting somatic line editing. In this paper, I will support that this suggestion makes no sense at all, because the somatic/germ line disjunctive has no moral relevance and, therefore, it should not play any role in legal terms. I will provide a number of reasons to hold this assumption, such as the non-sacred nature of the germ line, the difference between germ line and human genome modification, or the moral importance of the presence of a will to create modified descendants. While doing so, I will provide some examples of the different approaches to germ line editing adopted by different regulations so as to demonstrate that, contrary to what is sometimes stated, a general ban on this practice is not the rule, but the exception. Additionally, I will show how alternative options which currently exist, such as a selective ban based on criteria different to the germ line/somatic line distinction, match better with the need to conciliate research needs and legitimate ethical concerns. Finally, I will introduce some further suggestions to this same purpose.