Clashing interests is one of those issues used when there is nothing else to make up for lack of ideas, political programmes, etc. Of course it is an important problem, but those who could and should have addressed it in the past left it to rot in a drawer in anticipation of what has occurred.
I remember a case that might seem a joke but which did in fact occur many years ago, at the time of Peppone and Don Camillo. In a little town down south during the visit of communist party leader, after a conference the speaker invited to take the floor 3 party members who had enthusiastically clapped their hands during his speech and asked one of them: “If you had two bicycles and your companion hadn’t even one, what would you do?” The reply was: “I’d give him mine”. Very good, you have understood our party’s philosophy. He then asked the other, “If you had 10 hectares of land and your companions didn’t have any, what would you do?. The reply was, “I’d split them into three parts, and give a part to each person”. To the last, he asked: “If you had 10 hectares of land, 3 houses and 3 bicycles, what would you do?” Total silence. All prompts by the party secretary were to no avail. The man was justified by saying he was too excited and couldn’t speak. Finally, as he was about to leave the stage, while the microphone was still open, the secretary, who was continuing to complain about the man’s silence, received his answer, “What are you talking about, Giuseppe has no bicycles, Nicola does not have 10 hectares of land, but I do have 10 hectares of land, 3 houses and 3 bicycles, what are you talking about!”

This is not a tale, but nonetheless teaches us something. Let us go back to the health issue and the transparency operation implemented by minister Sirchia with respect to transplants. The health commissions of both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate continue along their legislative path. We shall make reference here to some of the measures adopted.
Of special importance is the cognitive investigation on the state of the Italian Red Cross suspended in the session of 22 January. Here is what Mr. Monarca (a lawyer) and senators Mascioni, Magri and Tonini said. MONARCA, considering the very little time at his disposal, spoke of presenting extensive documentation evidencing how the situation of the Italian Red Cross is the result of a malaise that has existed for some time and which has been worsened by the management of President Garavaglia.
Symptomatic in this respect is the centralisation of resources, no account of which has been given to the donators. He therefore disputes the statements of president Garavaglia regarding the fact that the few temporary receiverships approved by her were originated by the ascertainment of offences: this is not at all true as regards the Pavia Committee, behind which there was a very precise intent, evidence of which will be proved by the documentation. For too many years now, the Italian Red Cross has been waiting for a new statute. The cognitive investigation could be an excellent chance to determine just how serious the current situation is. The floor was then taken by senators MASCIONI (who asks for explanations on the further continuation of the investigation), MAGRI (who considers the documentation presented by the various speakers to be very useful), TONINI (who, having taken note of the Minister of Health’s order to suspend the renewal procedures of the elective appointments of the Italian Red Cross, thinks it would be a good idea for the Minister to indicate what new factors led to such a decision). Under-Secretary Cursi is in agreement and president Tomassini says he will ask the Minister to do this as and from next week.

(trad. Interpres sas - Giussano)