This article adopts a comparative approach exploring the reactions to the scarcity of resources resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic in Italy and Germany. Both countries showed a fragmented structure including individual hospitals, medical associations and recommendatory interdisciplinary bodies, such as ethics councils. Against this background, the authors use the different constitutional frameworks in which the healthcare systems are embedded to assess the legitimacy of the intervention by non-legislative bodies. It is demonstrated that, in both jurisdictions, a certain level of parliamentary involvement in establishing triage criteria or procedures is constitutionally required, as in situations of extreme scarcity the prioritisation decision cannot be determined by a mere clinical analysis but rather demands a normative choice.

本文采用比较方法，探讨意大利和德国因 Covid-19 大流行导致资源稀缺的反应。这两个国家都表现出分散的结构，包括个别医院、医学协会和推荐性跨学科机构，如伦理委员会。在此背景下，作者使用嵌入医疗保健系统的不同宪法框架来评估非立法机构干预的合法性。事实证明，在这两个司法管辖区，宪法要求议会在一定程度上参与制定分类标准或程序，因为在极度稀缺的情况下，优先级决定不能仅通过临床分析来确定，而是需要规范性选择。