ABSTRACT
El tema de la llamada píldora del día después o píldora del día siguiente se inició en Chile con una serie de acciones ante los tribunales ordinarios con resultados muy contradictorios, tras lo cual el fallo del Tribunal Constitucional de abril de 2008 resultó una importante definición acerca del estatuto del embrión humano, la protección de la vida y el principio precautorio aplicado a ella, aunque no pudo extenderse a todas las materias relacionadas con la PDD por ser la competencia del Tribunal muy acotada. Sin embargo, los efectos de ese fallo se proyectan de modo muy interesante hacia la interpretación constitucional futura y constituyen una clave en la lectura de los derechos fundamentales desde nuestra Constitución de 1980.
The Constitutional Court ruling on the so-called the day after pill or morning-after pill has come to settle a long controversy that began in the ordinary tribunals and courts of justice, rather than determinate the drug have antianidatorio effect or not, this means, if prevented or not the zygote can continue development in the womb of the mother. This situation has meant the decision to provide protection to the human embryo at the possibility of damage, which imports a precautionary statement around the right to life and it needed the protection of the human being from the moment of the conception.
Subject(s)
Humans , Female , Contraceptives, Postcoital , Constitution and Bylaws , Embryonic Structures , Human Rights , ChileABSTRACT
In clinical practice, confidentiality is always the ethical criterion and conduct for clinicians. But the principle is not absolute, once someone is in great danger because he or she does not know some medical information, doctors should take actions to avert or minimize the harm. In other words, doctors should take anticipatory-measures to protect him or her against uncertain but plausible risks for patients. In such context, clinical confidentiality is facing the challenge of the precautionary principle.