ABSTRACT
As a new-coming concept of internet,healthcare websites have tremendous advantages and disadvantages as well.On the one hand,they provide netizens with advice and support of keeping fit and reducing health-jeopardizing factors.However,on the other hand,there are also some controversies in the conduction of healthcare websites.For instance,how to protect general public from being cheated and induced by harmful and even fatal advices on internet? This paper discusses related risks of healthcare information on the net,and points out that the net performers should give behavioral supports oriented from both the information providers and users in order to build a decent healthcare culture in the digital world.
ABSTRACT
Tradicionalmente, la ética de la medicina se ha orientado por principios arraigados en conceptos filosóficos clásicos que contemplaban el lugar del hombre en la naturaleza, su relación con la Divinidad, la salud y la enfermedad, y los conceptos epistemológicos y metodológicos de diagnóstico, evaluación de riesgos y tratamiento. Del médico se esperaban virtudes tales como no causar daño, hacer el bien y abstenerse de emplear su pericia en actos manipulativos o coercitivos. El paciente virtuoso debía tener confianza en el médico y acatar el tratamiento. Hoy día, los adelantos tecnológicos y el advenimiento de una sociedad pluralista que hace hincapié en la autonomía del paciente instruido, conforman una situación mucho más compleja y cambiante. Sin embargo, en los argumentos bioéticos se encuentran algunos principios pragmáticos que pueden aljudar a resolverlos dilemas morales. Sass propone basarse en "principios morales intermedios" que han hallado respaldo en distintas ideologías y en la aplicación complementaria de varios modelos de hermenéutica y comunicación médico y paciente. La responsabilidad de la salud debe ser compartida por médico y paciente y fundamentada en el conocimiento, el respeto mutuo, y en la combinación de la pericia y la ética.
Medical ethics have traditionally been guided by principles based on classical philosophical ideas about the place of man in nature, his relation to God, health, and disease, and on the epistemological and methodological concepts of diagnosis, risk evaluation, and treatment. The virtues expected of a physician were to cause no harm, tomake patients better, and torefrain from using his skills for manipulation or coercion. The good patient was supposed to trust the physician and follow the treatment. Today, technological progress and the advent of a pluralistic society that emphasizes the autonomy of informed patients make forr a much more complex and changing situation. However, some pragmatic principies found in bioethical arguments may assist in resolving moral dilemmas. Sass proposes that a basis be sought in "intermediate moral principIes" that have found support in various ideologies and in complementary application of several models of doctor patient hermeneutics and communication. Responsibility for health should be shared by physician and patient and founded on knowledge, mutual respect, and a combination of skill and ethics.