Casas MML, Portes CMA

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 43-48
PDF size: 274.26 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Organ transplants when there are alternative therapies, as well as experimental procedures which do not contribute to maintain life, but to provide quality of life, cause major ethical and medical disputes. Transplanting a visible, mobile and sensitive organ, which is perceived as an essential part of the body is even more complex. The concept of health under the principle of benefit and autonomy forces one to consider that an experimental procedure, such as the upper limb transplant requires a rigid research protocol for its proper implementation. To have a valid, ethical assessment, such procedures must be analyzed completely including all quantitative and qualitative aspects such as the cost in the short, medium and long term, the real risk to health and the patient’s life related with immunosuppression and adjuvant therapies, functionality and aesthetics, as well as the psychological impact on both patient and family. All this should be considered not only by the surgical team, but by the entire group related to the procedure including the rehabilitation team, psychologists, the administrative team, the patient and family as well as by the Hospital Committee of Research Ethics, Bioethics and Transplants. The procedure will be ethically acceptable only if there is a proportionate relationship between the means employed and the predictable result. This paper aims at reflecting upon the application of the principle of therapeutic proportionality for composite tissue transplants in the Mexican reality emphasizing the special case of bilateral upper limb transplants.

REFERENCES

1. Andrew Lee, Dennis B. Phelps, David M. Lichtman. American Society for Surgery of the Hand: Position of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand. (sitio en internet) Position Revised November 2003. Disponible en: http://www.assh.org/PUBLIC/HANDCONDITIONS/Pages/Transplantation.aspx. Acceso el 9 de abril 2009.

2. Wildes K. Conserving Life and Conserving Means: Lead us not into Temptation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1995. (In: Philosophy and Medicine 51).

3. Andrew Lee, Dennis B. Phelps, David M. Lichtman. American Society for Surgery of the Hand, op. cit.

4. Farnete A, Genovese U. Il trapianto Della mano: aspetti medico-legali. Chirurgia Della mano 1999; 3 (Pt 2): 337-45.

5. Casas ML. Diccionario Latinoamericano de Bioética. Bogotá. UNESCO/Universidad de Colombia; 2008. Significado del cuerpo propio; p. 346.

6. Craven J, Rodin GM. Psychiatric aspects of organ transplantation. New York: Oxford University press 1992: 169-171.

7. UNESCO. Hacia una Declaración Universal de Bioética, un desafío Internacional. (sitio en internet) Conclusiones finales del Seminario Regional UNESCO. 2009. Disponible en: http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/files/7067/11047719031EAWArgentinaReport.pdf/EAWArgentinaReport.pdf. Acceso el 9 de abril 2009.

8. American College of Physicians. ACP Ethics Manual. 3 Edition. Ann Inter Med 1992; 117: 947-960.

9. Schneiderman L, Jecker N, Jonsen A. Medical futility: Its meaning and ethical implication. Ann Intern Med 1990; 112: 949-54.

10. Gracia CD. Procedimientos de decisión en ética clínica. Madrid: EUDEMA 1991; 144: 151-2.

11. Cerón DU, Esponda PJ, Borboya PM. Valor predictivo de los sistemas de calificación de gravedad: comparación de cuatro modelos en tres unidades de terapia intensiva mexicanas incluidas en la base de datos multicéntrica de terapia intensiva. Medicina Crítica y Terapia Intensiva 2000; XIV(2): 58.

12. Dougherty Ch, Purtilo R. Physicians’ Duty of Compassion. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 1995; 4: 426-33.

13. Christensen CK. Applying the Concept of Futility at the Bedside. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 1992; 1: 239-48.