During the communications session of the Grand and General Council (Consiglio Grande e Generale), Miriam Farinelli (RF) spoke on the relationship between artificial intelligence and healthcare, addressing both the opportunities offered by new technologies and the risks tied to data protection, clinical responsibility and the possible dehumanization of care. She closed her remarks with a tribute to Matteo Fiorini. The full speech follows.
Miriam Farinelli (RF): One of the most pressing topics of recent times, across every sector and every country, is the use of artificial intelligence. It is a complex subject, but one I would like to share with this Chamber as it relates to the organization of healthcare, which is increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence as well. The relationship between artificial intelligence and the governance of public health will define the healthcare agenda of the coming decades more than any previous technological innovation. I speak both as a clinician who has practiced and continues to practice medicine, and as a political representative called, like all of us, to translate into laws, budgets and organizational choices the processes that technology makes possible — processes that only politics can guide, limit or steer toward the common good. From both a clinical and institutional perspective, one can appreciate the extraordinary opportunities artificial intelligence offers to healthcare, provided it is supported by a solid regulatory framework, informed public governance and serious investment in expertise. The question is not whether artificial intelligence will enter healthcare — it already has. The real issue is whether politics will be able to govern its arrival with the same speed, competence and responsibility with which this technological innovation is spreading. If properly governed, artificial intelligence can be one of the most effective responses to the structural problems that have long affected our healthcare system: staff shortages, an aging population, the rise in chronic illness, and mounting pressure on public spending. Consider, for example, predictive medicine. The ability to integrate clinical, behavioral and environmental data opens the door to a genuinely proactive form of medicine, one capable of anticipating disease rather than merely treating it. Prevention means better care — and care delivered with fewer resources. Consider also the management of care pathways and waiting lists. This is not administrative science fiction: several countries have launched pilot programs with encouraging results, particularly in reducing waiting times for specialist services. Artificial intelligence can also make a valuable contribution to pharmacological research, leveraging our organizational agility as a small country to good effect. Two further areas of significant application are telemedicine and the remote monitoring of chronic patients. In a population that is progressively aging, this can support home-based care, allowing elderly or frail patients to remain in their own living environment for longer. At the same time, we must highlight the issue of clinical and legal responsibility, a matter that directly affects citizens’ trust and the professional integrity of healthcare workers. There is also the issue of protecting personal and health data: without rigorous cybersecurity safeguards, there is a real risk of privacy breaches and improper use of such data. And there is a risk that I would describe as even more fundamental than the technical one: the dehumanization of the care relationship. Medicine can never be reduced to mere data processing. It is relationship, it is listening, it is that element of clinical empathy that no algorithm, however sophisticated, will ever be able to replicate. This is a risk that politics has a duty to prevent through conscious organizational choices, rather than leaving everything to the logic of technological efficiency alone. Faced with these risks, the European Union has chosen the path of preventive regulation, with a far-sighted data protection framework that treats health data as a category deserving of reinforced safeguards. We too, as a small country, must be ready. It will be the responsibility of politics to invest in public data infrastructure and in the training of healthcare personnel, including through university education; to preserve the principle that human judgment must remain central, since the algorithm can assist but never replace clinical judgment; to strengthen oversight and control mechanisms; and to build public trust through transparency and citizen engagement. The significant initial investments must be accompanied by a rigorous assessment of economic impact, capable of measuring, over time, the savings actually generated. Otherwise, the risk is that public healthcare ends up funding costly, poorly validated technologies, diverting resources away from priority areas of care. Artificial intelligence is neither the panacea some proclaim it to be, nor the existential threat others fear. It is an extraordinarily powerful tool, and its impact on citizens’ lives will depend entirely on the choices that we, as legislators, and the administrators we appoint, are able to make in the years ahead. Every major technological transformation has confronted society with the same choice: to passively endure change, or to actively govern it, steering it toward the common good. Artificial intelligence is no exception. I close my remarks with a thought that is owed. With deep respect, I turn my thoughts to Matteo Fiorini, a man devoted to public service, a friend and a professional of great worth. I valued the seriousness, competence and passion with which he always carried out his political commitment. His integrity and his humanity will remain an example and a cherished memory — an example of seriousness in work and generosity in human relationships.
