Multiple nail gun injuries: suicide or homicide?

Nail gun injuries are a forensic problem; it can be difficult to distinguish self-inflicted injuries from accident and homicide instances. This kind of injuries shares some characteristics with both gunshot and puncture wounds. We describe a peculiar case of a man who committed suicide driving nails into his skull using a pneumatic nail gun. Entrance wounds were found on both temporal regions of the head. Reviewing scientific literature, this is the first case in Italy reporting the macroscopic data of bilateral head and brain nail gun injuries during an autopsy. Circumstantial elements were not sufficient to clarify if these lesions were self-inflicted, inflicted by accident, or else. Radiological examination can be helpful to show the exact location of the nails, but it has also its own limitations. We firmly believe that autopsy, especially the head section, is crucial to identify the nature and the extension of these lesions, thus giving us much more information about the mechanism of death and the circumstances in which it occurred.

Photography as the Sole Means of Proof: Medical Liability in Dermatology.

Malignant melanoma is a cutaneous malignancy resulting from the uncontrolled proliferation of melanocytes and poses a challenge diagnostically because neoplastic lesions can mimic benign lesions, which are much more common in the population. Doctors, when they suspect the presence of melanoma, arrange for its removal and the performance of a histological examination to ascertain its diagnosis; in cases where the dermatoscopic examination is indicative of benignity, however, after the lesion is removed, histological examination is not always performed, a very dangerous occurrence and a harbinger of further medico-legal problems. The authors present a court litigation case of an "alleged" failure to diagnose malignant melanoma in a patient who died of brain metastases from melanoma in the absence of a certain location of the primary tumor: the physician who had removed a benign lesion a few months earlier was sued, and only thanks to the presence of photographic documentation was the health care provider able to prove his extraneousness. The aim of this paper is to formulate a proposal for a dermatological protocol to be followed in cases of excisions of benign skin lesions with a twofold purpose: on the one hand, to be able to prove, in a judicial context, the right action on the part of the sanitarians; on the other hand, to avoid the rise of so-called "defensive medicine".

Suspension of Care for Patients With Spasticity During COVID-19 Pandemic: Ethical and Medico-Legal Point of View Starting From an Italian Study.

The COVID-19 pandemic has revolutionized the habits of entire communities, having even more profound negative effects on assistance for the chronically ill. The sudden demand for extraordinary resources caught all worldwide countries unprepared, highlighting shortages in provision of care services. This applies to all patients, affected by COVID-19 or not, as many need continuing access to chronic diseases treatments. Almost all of the energy available has been directed toward care of COVID-19 patients, and almost nothing has been done to continue therapy for patients with spasticity. This study builds on a recent article and discusses its results as a basis for highlighting the ethical dilemmas and unintended consequences of health systems changing their priorities during the pandemic. The above mentioned study has shown increased patient-perceived spasticity during lockdown (72.2%) with reductions in perceived quality of life (70.9%). Telemedicine tools have proved insufficient, with access by only 7.3% of these patients. Despite the health emergency, it cannot be denied that this situation is a violation of these patients' rights and dignity. The healthcare system will also have to bear increased costs in the future to recover the loss of previous therapies benefits, because of their interruption. The real challenge will be to exploit the critical issues emerged during the pandemic, and to resolve the measures needed to take the care to the patient, and not vice versa. This applies particularly to fragile patients, to respect their dignity and right to care.