RESUMO
The controversies in Bristol, Alder Hey and elsewhere in the UK surrounding the removal and retention of human tissue and organs have led to extensive law reform in all three UK legal systems. This paper reports a short study of the reactions of a range of health professionals to these changes. Three main areas of ethical concern were noted: the balancing of individual rights and social benefit; the efficacy of the new procedures for consent; and the helpfulness for professional practice of the new legislation and regulation. Recognition of these concerns may help in forging a new partnership between professionals and patients and their families.
Assuntos
Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido/legislação & jurisprudência , Direitos do Paciente/legislação & jurisprudência , Consentimento do Representante Legal/legislação & jurisprudência , Bancos de Tecidos/legislação & jurisprudência , Coleta de Tecidos e Órgãos/legislação & jurisprudência , Autopsia/ética , Autopsia/legislação & jurisprudência , Cadáver , Humanos , Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido/ética , Direitos do Paciente/ética , Padrões de Prática Médica/ética , Bancos de Tecidos/ética , Doadores de Tecidos/ética , Doadores de Tecidos/legislação & jurisprudênciaRESUMO
The patient-doctor relationship has recently come under intense scrutiny, resulting in a re-evaluation of the basis of that relationship. The papers by Glannon and Ross, and McKay seek to identify the sources of authority in the patient-doctor relationship by evaluating it in terms of the concept of altruism. In this paper I argue that the analysis of Glannon and Ross, and of McKay is unnecessary and that the analysis offered by the latter is also flawed. I do acknowledge, however, that Glannon and Ross's description of doctors' responsibilities and patients' roles has much to commend it.
