| dc.description.abstract | The work seeks to identify whether an intelligent system can be built ad hoc for the automatic and preventive capture of
conflicts of interest in the context of Public Administrations that they carry out activities functional to health (health
procurement). The legislation on public procurement (especially the health one), the one on “conflicts of interest”, on the
protection of personal data and on transparency is explored, arriving at the doctrinal and jurisprudential reflections and
perspectives on the relationship between P.A. and artificial intelligence. The writer, undoubtedly, retraces the path traced by
the doctrine, arriving at a more compelling solution, i.e. promoting, on the same basis as the so-called “protective
algorithm” (i.e. functional to the person and his protection), the notion of “preventive algorithm”, which must be imbued
with legal values for the captative decision (ethics by design) and must be persistently imbued with these values until the its
natural and material kept running (ethics by default). The primary nature and priority of the “humanization of the algorithm”
and its “functionalization” to achieve the psycho-physical well-being of the person, but also that the effectiveness and
efficiency of the PA is not hidden. Nor is the need to construct a notion of “ex ante merit screening” of any intelligent
system. The work focuses on the doctrinal developments on the “subjective tripartition” of the responsibility of algorithms
and elaborates a series of conclusive reflections, establishing that it is absolutely possible to be able to create a captative
computer system, in compliance with the fundamental rights of the person, capable of bringing the PA to a rationalization
of resources and above all to a legitimate achievement of the objectives. Finally, the work opens some arguments on the
civil liability of health robots; on the possibility, through the informed consent collected by an inmate to be able to donate
their neuronal data (with the limit of functionalization of the purpose – so-called neuronal privacy –) for study and research
in the light of Law no. 10/2020 (on the subject of post mortem body donation for scientific research purposes) and on the
possibility of managing one’s data (habeas data and habeas mentem) “now by then”. [edited by Author] | it_IT |
