ABSTRACT
Telemedicine partially resolved inequalities in access to health care, especially in geographical areas with a low number of doctors and in places with absent or insufficient specialists. Currently, Chile has a National Telehealth Program, but there are no specific laws on digital medicine that recognize remote medical acts and it is uncertain if they really are medical acts. The goal of a medical act is the well-being of a patient, requiring a therapeutic alliance based on the doctor's knowledge of the needs, expectations and fears of such a patient. This article tries to determine if patient care by telemedicine can be considered a medical act. For this purpose, the conception of a medical act defined by P. Laín Entralgo, M. Besio and the main medical and professional associations is analyzed in depth. It is concluded that although direct physical contact between doctor and patient largely supports the therapeutic alliance, telemedicine has been successful, particularly in its synchronous modality. Taking the necessary precautions, in most cases distant medical acts can be carried out allowing a humanized and respectful care of people.
Subject(s)
Humans , Telemedicine , Chile , Delivery of Health CareABSTRACT
Organ donation for transplantation raises ethical dilemmas which demand a response from an anthropological vision respectful of the human person and his dignity. The ethical principles that should be respected primarily are: the defense of physical life, self-determination and non-instrumentalization of human beings. The act of donation is essentially altruistic and, as such, cannot be mandatory; consent process shall be ethically valid if it contains sufficient information and if is signed by a competent person, free of coercion. In the case of living donors, the act shall be lawful if there is an adequate relationship between the risks for the donor and the expected benefits for the recipient. Deceased organ donation occurs in two circumstances, when death is certified by neurological criteria (brain death) or by cardiovascular criterion (circulatory death); the latter usually occurs in critically ill patients in whom it has been decided to limit the therapeutic effort withdrawing life support measures. In decision-making at the end of life, physicians should always pursue the good of the patient, regardless of their status as potential donor; also, the medical team must have reasonable certainty that death has occurred when removing the organs. The person must always be treated as an end in itself and never as a mere means for obtaining other purposes, however laudable they may be.
La donación de órganos para trasplantes plantea dilemas éticos cuya respuesta demanda una visión antropológica respetuosa de la persona humana y su dignidad. Los principios éticos que deberían respetarse primariamente son: la defensa de la vida física, la autodeterminación y la no-instrumentalización del ser humano. El acto de donación es esencialmente altruista y, como tal, no puede ser obligatorio; el proceso de consentimiento será éticamente válido si es informado, suscrito por una persona competente y libre de coacción o coerción. En el caso del donante vivo, el acto será lícito en la medida que exista una relación adecuada entre los riesgos a que se somete el donante y los beneficios esperados para el receptor. La donación de órganos por alguien ya fallecido ocurre en dos circunstancias, según si la muerte se certifica mediante criterio neurológico (muerte encefálica) o por criterio cardiovascular (muerte circulatoria o en asistolía); este último caso ocurre habitualmente en pacientes críticos en quienes se ha decidido limitar el esfuerzo terapéutico suspendiendo medidas de soporte vital. Un correcto actuar médico siempre debe privilegiar el bien del paciente en la toma de decisiones al final de la vida, con independencia de su condición de potencial donante; asimismo, el equipo médico debe tener razonable certeza que la muerte ya ha ocurrido al momento de extraer los órganos. La persona debe ser tratada siempre como un fin en sí misma y nunca como mero medio para la obtención de otros fines, por muy loables que éstos sean.
Subject(s)
Humans , Brain Death , Ethical Analysis , Organ Transplantation , Personhood , Tissue and Organ ProcurementABSTRACT
Background: Oral examinations are a useful tool to appraise certain medical skills compared to other examinations. However, they have some disadvantages that might be reduced with standardization. Aim: To compare students’ perception comparing a standardized oral exam (SOE) versus a traditional, non-standardized oral exam (NSOE). Material and Methods: During the first semester of 2013 a NSOE was applied to internal medicine undergraduate students. During the second semester, a SOE was applied. An anonymous and voluntary perception questionnaire, consisting in 10 questions based on a 5-level Likert scale, was answered by these students. Statistical analysis was done using the Mann-Whitney U test. Results: Among the 118 students, 50.8% were evaluated using NSOE and 49.2% using SOE. Questionnaire response rate was 84%. Among respondents, 52% took the SOE and 48%, the NSOE. Students evaluated using SOE perceived that the degree of complexity of clinical cases was similar for all examinees (p < 0.05), that exam duration was standardized (p < 0.05), and that grades obtained were less influenced by the clinical site where the exam was taken (p < 0.05). However, anxiety level remained high in both groups, as well as the overall satisfaction experience. Conclusions: Standardization of an oral examination improves the perception of medical students about levels of difficulty, duration and external influences on the final grade.