Loreto Gesualdo, the president of the Italian Federation of Medical-Scientific Societies (Fism), has proposed legislation to suspend free access to medical care for three years for those who assault healthcare workers or damage health facilities.
Fism reported more than 16,000 verbal and physical attacks against doctors and nurses in Italian hospitals in 2023 alone.
Using army for public order, why? Soldiers are trained to fight, not ti deal with problematic, probably unarmed people.
Just use the police. There used to be police posts at ERs, they were cut. We don’t need a new solution…
Using army for public order, why?
Fascism. Getting people used to it by making it seem necessary.
Italian people are already used to having the army do public order tasks; operation “safe roads” was introduced in 2008 and has been renewed ever since, by every government. This operation is essentially just the use of military personnel for patrol, deterrence and setting checkpoint in Italian cities.
I believe it is important to sooner or later discuss this and to end it, as it has negative effects on the soldiers and also in general on how law enforcement is structured and thought of by governments and politicians. However this is by no means a proposal that for the first time would give military personnel responsibilities for public order nor it has anything to do with fascism.
Does the color of the uniform of the officer armed with an MP really matter?
There’s a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state. The other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.
From Adama in Battlestar Galactica
So say we all.
The military serving civil duties can also connect them more to the citizens they’re supposed to protect. Be it natural disasters, epidemics, etc.
If all you do is focus on military hierarchy that’s all you have, and far away from the people.
Agreed. The important difference here is that in these cases they do not serve in their form as a (military) force. They have no more authority in these situations than a random citizen already performing said tasks. Performing policing duties, they inherently have power and authority.
Civilian vs military control
I know, but does it make you feel different or affect your behaviour wether the uniform is blue/black or olive green?
Additionally, it is about Italy, where some police forces, the Carabinieri, are officially part of the armed forces but, beside military tasks, under control of the ministry of internal affairs.It does actually make me feel different. But I’m not a place that’s used to militarized police so it might be different from Italians.
Carabinieri are a police force that is under military hierarchy, but they are trained to operate in a civil context. They act and are equipped as a police force.
But the army mentioned in the news would be the one used to fight wars, with uniform and automatic weapons, not Carabienieri
No, but it does matter who’s giving the orders.
The soldiers are basically only for deterrence I guess.
problematic
Violent attacks, especially with an axe, not sure I’d call them just “problematic”
A soldier is trained to deal with enemies with at least an automatic rifle.
Policemen are instead trained to deal with crazies with axes, knives, rods… etc. and possibly neutrilize them without killing them. They should be able to try a negotiation even. What can a soldier with an automatic rifle already in his hand do? Shoot.
It’s easy:
- war, peace keeping -> army
- public order, criminals -> police
Right, but that doesn’t have much to do about the people being called “problematic” that I was talking about
Ok, I got your point
What I wanted to say, on the other hand, is that for one guy with an axe that ends up in the news, you have 100 guys that may act aggressively and/or violently. And as it is today, doctors and medical personnel has to deal with those too. A soldier would be even less suitable in those cases…
I agree with that. Soldiers aren’t best suited for the job. I think it might partially be that people are looking for quick solutions and soldiers seem for many to be quick low-cost solution, even though security guards would seem more obvious. But those you’d have to pay, meanwhile you already got these soldiers, so “might as well use them for something useful”.
I get the thinking, but it’s not a great idea.
Why do they get attacked though?
Edit: got time to read he article:
Many of the assaults are caused by the shortage of hospital staff and family members’ frustration at the resulting long waiting times for surgery and consultations.
According to the doctors’ union ANAAO, until 2022 almost half of positions in emergency medicine were vacant. Salary-cap legislation over the past two decades to curb public spending has kept salaries low, and work schedules are punishing. For many Italian medical staff, the Covid pandemic was the tipping point, accelerating an exodus abroad. Spending plans published by Giorgia Meloni’s government envisage further healthcare cuts.
In 2023, according to the Forum delle Società Scientifiche dei Clinici Ospedalieri e Universitari Italiani, there was a shortage of approximately 30,000 doctors in Italy. Between 2010 and 2020, 111 hospitals and 113 emergency rooms closed.
Yeah, sounds totally reasonable to put soldiers in hospitals in order to solve these problems. /s smh
The healthcare workers deserve protection from violence even when the root cause is somewhere else. You can provide that security while also moving to fix the shortages. It doesn’t have to be one or the another.
I also don’t see how the cause would warrant or excuse aggression or assault.
Soldiers/Police protecting staff ensures they can work. assault and lack of protection does the opposite.
Fair point.
I don’t know about other European countries’ violence against medical staff, but the shortage of skilled healthcare workers is to my knowledge somewhat paneuropean.
