Gender Gap in academic medicine: a narrative review and the Italian forensic context.

Background: Gender gap is a neologism that identifies the disparity between social and professional conditions experienced by females compared to males. The disparity increases as one ascends the academic hierarchy. In recent years, the debate has expanded, and more options have been planned for the elimination of the current gender gap. Methods: This research was conducted by examining the landscape of the gender gap, particularly in the academic forensic medicine field. Our analysis involved reviewing papers published between 2006 and 2024, identified through electronic database searches (PubMed). The search terms used were: "gender gap" AND "academic" AND "medicine" AND "leadership." In total, we analyzed 85 papers. Additionally, we examined data from forensic medicine residency programs. Conclusions: The representation of women in medicine is well-known. Despite the increasing number of women in leadership positions in medicine, they still lag significantly behind men. These data highlight a situation that could be seen as grounds for an accusation of "academic abuse". In the Italian forensic residency programs, less than 20% are led by women, and among these, not all hold the rank of full professor. Although a certain rebalancing is already underway, the gap is still significant. There are already regulations obliging local authorities to promote gender equality in councils, companies, and institutions under their jurisdiction. It would be desirable to consider minimum quotas for female participation in university competitions. This would be a first step toward eliminating the gender gap in academic and forensic medical fields.

Loss of chance: the uncertainty of the event or the uncertainty of the conduct? Case Series and Medicolegal Considerations.

Background: The concept of damages for loss of chance originated in France in 1877 and was adapted to healthcare in 1962. In Italy, it was first introduced in healthcare liability in 2004, with Civil Court of Cassation decision No. 4400. Italian jurisprudence recognizes the loss of chance as an independent, legally and economically assessable damage, distinct from the actual outcome lost. The landmark St. Martin Judgments of 2019 further established that such damages can be claimed if they involve appreciable, serious, and consistent values. This requires proving a causal link between the conduct and the lost chance, based on established civil law criteria. Case report: 1) a 71-year-old man whose lung carcinoma was not diagnosed in time, leading to a significant reduction in survival chances. 2) a woman whose breast cancer diagnosis was delayed, resulting in a more advanced stage and decreased survival prospects. Discussion: In medical professional liability, the Supreme Court requires a high probability or certainty of causation for recognizing the causal link between wrongful conduct and damage. The assessment involves proving both the causal link and the reasonable probability of a lost opportunity's realization. Hypothetical damage is insufficient for compensation. Conclusions: The compensability of loss of chance relies on proving the causal link between the negligent act and the uncertain event, where the impact on the patient's non-pecuniary sphere is significant. Medicolegal practice faces challenges in distinguishing between causality and damage, which can lead to confusion between biological damage and damage from loss of opportunity.