Ettore Battelli
Ettore Battelli is Professor of Private Law at the University of Roma Tre, where he holds the chair of Institutions of Private Law and is a member of the Board of Professors of the PhD in Legal Sciences. He is a Lawyer admitted to defence before the Court of Cassation and the other Superior Jurisdictions, enrolled to the register of the Bar Association of Rome, member of the Banking and Financial Ombudsman on appointment of Banca d’Italia and scientific advisor of Authorities and Institutions.He was visiting fellow in prestigious foreign Universities (Oxford, Beijing, Sorbonne), scientific responsible of italian and european research projects.He works, on a permanent basis, with leading law reviews and he is a member of Monitoring Centres, Schools of Specialization and Advanced Education, National Boards, International Institutes and Research Centres.He conducts didactic activities and takes part as a speaker in conferences in Italy and abroad. He is Author of monographic studies and essays in the field of contract law, business law, competition law, consumer law, tourism law, new technologies and intellectual property, tort law, arbitration and ADR, cultural goods law, sport law, entertainment law, protection of children, family law and bioethics.
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (89)
Uploads
Papers by Ettore Battelli
Hence, the informed consent represents the heart of the legal framework provided by L. n. 219/2017, as a primary expression of private autonomy and as bulwark of freedom of persons. The informed consent matter is strictly connected to the relation between doctor and patient, since each medical treatment needs patients informed and preliminary consents. Therefore, the informed consent creates a link between freedom of self-determination of the patient and professional autonomy of the doctor.
The consent has to be preceded by a preliminary exhaustive information and has to be free, evident, personal and to be explicitly e specifically from the patient. To this end, it may be useful to underline that the informed consent function is to ensure the medical treatment may be human, empathetic and personal, since usually based on an asymmetric
relation and nowadays affected by the technologization process of medicine. Even though a paternalistic approach should not be adopted, it may be endorsed the role of law in saving people from risks, such as red tape of medical treatment or therapeutic abandonment. It may be criticised the exclusion of these provisions’ implementation in case of children protection and in case of people with mental capacity but devoid of the legal one. Notwithstanding the changeability of the informed consent by patient (ex art.1, co. 5, l. 219/2017), the legal framework grants to each individual the right to refuse therapeutic examinations and treatments and the right to withdraw the consent at any time, even if it should interrupt a medical treatment needed to the patient’s survival, yet always in accordance with mandatory rules and with the medical code of conduct. From this perspective, freedom of self-determination and health care are not contrasting concepts, but they may be intended as complementary.
l’esito del processo attraverso l’uso di algoritmi; nonostante i rischi
delle decisioni robotiche.
Lo studio nasce da una domanda: un giudice può essere sostituito da
un robot?
La tesi è che la decisione robotica e quella umana possono commettere
errori e le decisioni robotiche non possono essere considerate “giuste”,
anche quando sono logicamente “corrette”: non ci sono macchine
infallibili.
Tuttavia, si dovrebbe valutare positivamente che l’automazione del
processo decisionale consenta di ottenere vantaggi significativi in termini
di uniformità, affidabilità e controllabilità della decisione.