[共享过程中的知情同意]。

IF 0.3 Q4 ETHICS Cuadernos de Bioetica Pub Date : 2022-05-01 DOI:10.30444/CB.120
Álvaro Sanz, Francisco Barón, María Luisa Del Valle
{"title":"[共享过程中的知情同意]。","authors":"Álvaro Sanz,&nbsp;Francisco Barón,&nbsp;María Luisa Del Valle","doi":"10.30444/CB.120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Nowadays, medicine tends towards specialization. But there are also more shared or interdisciplinary processes in which professionals request some type of technique or a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure that must performed by another specialist. In this scenario that involves different professionals, it is reasonable a certain debate about which of them should obtain the informed consent of the patient. The first error would be to pose this process as a confrontation between professionals who derive or delegate their own responsibilities to another. It is, on the contrary, a teamwork and not a mere delegation of duties. On the one hand, it should be the doctor who carries out the technique and, therefore, knows it best as a procedure and is an expert in the early diagnosis and management of side effects, who should inform about the procedure and its risks. And, therefore, it is his duty to obtain the appropriate informed consent. And, since everything is understood as a shared process, it would also be advisable that the physician in charge of the care and follow-up of the patient, and who has taken the initiative to request this technique, had already provided basic information, more focused on the reason for the indication, and that a pre-consent had been obtained, that is a prior elementary verbal consent of acceptance or, at least, of non-rejection. And it would be convenient to record this information in the medical record as well.</p>","PeriodicalId":42510,"journal":{"name":"Cuadernos de Bioetica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Informed consent in shared processes].\",\"authors\":\"Álvaro Sanz,&nbsp;Francisco Barón,&nbsp;María Luisa Del Valle\",\"doi\":\"10.30444/CB.120\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Nowadays, medicine tends towards specialization. But there are also more shared or interdisciplinary processes in which professionals request some type of technique or a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure that must performed by another specialist. In this scenario that involves different professionals, it is reasonable a certain debate about which of them should obtain the informed consent of the patient. The first error would be to pose this process as a confrontation between professionals who derive or delegate their own responsibilities to another. It is, on the contrary, a teamwork and not a mere delegation of duties. On the one hand, it should be the doctor who carries out the technique and, therefore, knows it best as a procedure and is an expert in the early diagnosis and management of side effects, who should inform about the procedure and its risks. And, therefore, it is his duty to obtain the appropriate informed consent. And, since everything is understood as a shared process, it would also be advisable that the physician in charge of the care and follow-up of the patient, and who has taken the initiative to request this technique, had already provided basic information, more focused on the reason for the indication, and that a pre-consent had been obtained, that is a prior elementary verbal consent of acceptance or, at least, of non-rejection. And it would be convenient to record this information in the medical record as well.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":42510,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cuadernos de Bioetica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cuadernos de Bioetica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30444/CB.120\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cuadernos de Bioetica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30444/CB.120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如今,医学趋向专业化。但也有更多的共享或跨学科的过程,在这些过程中,专业人员要求某种类型的技术或诊断或治疗程序必须由另一位专家执行。在这种情况下,涉及不同的专业人员,这是合理的争论,他们中的哪一个应该获得患者的知情同意。第一个错误是将这一过程视为专业人士之间的对抗,这些专业人士将自己的责任派生或委托给他人。相反,这是一种团队合作,而不仅仅是职责的委派。一方面,实施这项技术的应该是医生,因此,作为一种程序,他最了解它,是早期诊断和副作用管理方面的专家,他应该告知该程序及其风险。因此,他有责任获得适当的知情同意。而且,既然一切都被理解为一个共同的过程,那么负责病人的护理和随访的医生,以及主动要求采用这种技术的医生,也应该已经提供了基本的信息,更关注于适应症的原因,并且已经获得了预先同意,即接受或至少不拒绝的事先基本口头同意。在病历中记录这些信息也会很方便。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[Informed consent in shared processes].

Nowadays, medicine tends towards specialization. But there are also more shared or interdisciplinary processes in which professionals request some type of technique or a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure that must performed by another specialist. In this scenario that involves different professionals, it is reasonable a certain debate about which of them should obtain the informed consent of the patient. The first error would be to pose this process as a confrontation between professionals who derive or delegate their own responsibilities to another. It is, on the contrary, a teamwork and not a mere delegation of duties. On the one hand, it should be the doctor who carries out the technique and, therefore, knows it best as a procedure and is an expert in the early diagnosis and management of side effects, who should inform about the procedure and its risks. And, therefore, it is his duty to obtain the appropriate informed consent. And, since everything is understood as a shared process, it would also be advisable that the physician in charge of the care and follow-up of the patient, and who has taken the initiative to request this technique, had already provided basic information, more focused on the reason for the indication, and that a pre-consent had been obtained, that is a prior elementary verbal consent of acceptance or, at least, of non-rejection. And it would be convenient to record this information in the medical record as well.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
20.00%
发文量
5
期刊介绍: La revista Cuadernos de Bioética, órgano oficial de la Asociación Española de Bioética y Ética Médica, publica cuatrimestralmente artículos y recensiones bibliográficas sobre todas las áreas de la bioética: fundamentación, ética de la investigación, bioética clínica, biojurídica, etc. Estos proceden de los aceptados en la revisión tutelada por los editores de la revista como de otros que por encargo el comité editorial solicite a sus autores. La edicion de la revista se financia con las aportaciones de los socios de AEBI.
期刊最新文献
[Bioethical issues of Covid-19 in Spain. A systematic review]. [Ethical and legal implications of digital mental health applications]. [Human reason versus arrogance technoscience and the replacement shadow. -Ethical evaluation and social control to regain power on the means and ends from the work of José Sanmartín]. [Response to: ″An egg is not a chicken and an embryo is not a child″]. [The proposal for a regulation on the recognition of parenthood: An attempt to recognize surrogacy in the European Union?]
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1