Algunas amenazas actuales a la confidencialidad en medicina / Some current threats to confidentiality in medicine

Social, technical and legal conditions of the current practice of medicine make it necessary to insist on certain actions and circumstances that may jeopardize the confidentiality of information, offered by patients to their health providers. Therefore, some effects of the current Chilean law are analyzed in this respect, regarding access to data from the clinical record of a patient. Also, the risks of putting certain data on social networking sites are analyzed, as well as some of its effects on clinical practice. The reasons because of mandatory reporting of diseases, meaning danger to public health, is allowed, are mentioned. We also discuss the difficulties involved in managing the results of preventative health screenings and its knowledge by third parties, as well as some possible violations of personal privacy, regarding dissemination of some people health information and its further mention or figuration in mass media. We conclude that it is a must for both physicians and other health team members, to safeguard confidentiality of data to which they have had access, as well as the need to know the relevant law, in order to respect human dignity of patients, each one as a person. We address the attention to the possibility that, practicing in a different way, it could endanger the reliability of clinical records, also impairing the quality of people’s health care.

Eutanasia y acto médico / Euthanasia and medical act

Right to life -as the prohibition of intentionally and arbitrarily taking life, even with authorization of the concerned one- is an internationally recognized right. In many countries, debate regarding euthanasia is more centered in its convenience, social acceptability and how it is regulated, than in its substantial legitimacy. Some argue that euthanasia should be included as part of clinical practice of health professionals, grounded on individual's autonomy claims-everyone having the liberty to choose how to live and how to die. Against this, others sustain that life has a higher value than autonomy, exercising autonomy without respecting the right to life would become a serious moral and social problem. Likewise, euthanasia supporters some-times claim a 'right to live with dignity', which must be understood as a personal obligation, referred more to the ethical than to the strictly legal sphere. In countries where it is already legalized, euthanasia practice has extended to cases where it is not the patient who requests this but the family or some healthcare professional, or even the legal system-when they think that the patient is living in a condition which is not worthy to live. Generalization of euthanasia possibly will end in affecting those who need more care, such as elder, chronically ill or dyingpeople, damaging severely personal basic rights. Nature, purpose and tradition of medicine rule out the practice of euthanasia, which ought not be considered a medical act or legitimately compul-sory for physicians. Today's medicine counts with effective treatments for pain and suffering, such as palliative care, including sedative therapy, which best preserves persons dignity and keeps safe the ethos of the medical profession.

La reanimación cardiorrespiratoria y la orden de no reanimar / Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and do not resuscitate orders

In medical practice, the different scenarios in which cardio respiratory resuscitation (CPR) may be applied must be taken into account. CPR is crucial in subjects that arrive in emergency rooms or suffer a cardiac arrest in public places or at their homes. It is also critical in hospitalized patients with potentially reversible diseases, who suffer cardiac arrest as an unexpected event during their evolution. In intensive care units, the decision is particularly complex. The concepts of therapeutic proportionality, treatment futility and therapeutic tenacity can help physicians in their decision making about when CPR is technically and morally mandatory. The do not resuscitate (DNR) decision in taken when a patient is bearing an irreversible disease and his life is coming to an end. DNR decisions are clearly indicated in intensive care units to limit the therapeutic effort and in other hospital facilities, when death is foreseeable and therapeutic tenacity must be avoided. DNR orders must be renewed and reconsidered on a daily basis. It does not mean that other treatment should be discontinued and by no means should the patient be abandoned. DNR and previous directives, DNR and quality of life and DNR communication are also commented in the present article.

El enfermo terminal / The terminally ill patient

The classification of a patient as terminally ill is based on an expert diagnosis of a severe and irreversible disease and the absence of an effective available treatment, according to present medical knowledge. Terminal diseases must not be confused with severe ones, since the latter may be reversible with an adequate and timely treatment. The physician assumes a great responsibility at the moment of diagnosing a patient as terminally ill. The professional must assume his care until the moment of death. This care must be oriented to the alleviation of symptoms and to provide the best possible quality of life. Also, help must be provided to deal with personal, legal and religious issues that may concern the patient