Rodríguez-Rojas EN, Jimeno-Papova R, Serrano-Miranda T, Alfaro-Rodríguez A, Durand-Rivera A, González-Piña R

Language: Spanish
References: 18
Page: 90-97
PDF size: 135.02 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction. Bioethics allows to define principles according to the respect toward the persons that claim for medical attention. The rehabilitation’s students will confront the moment when a clinical decision will be taken, which implies a clinical decision and also an ethical issue. Objective. To identify the way by which the rehabilitation’s students confront some bioethical conflicts and to study if there are differences in their responses when they are grouped by discipline. Material and methods. 190 students from the bachelor’s degree of Human’s Communication, Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy (Escuela Superior de Rehabilitación, Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación, Mexico) were assessed by means of a questionnaire designed to examine the way to solve 5 current bioethical conflicts: intellectual honesty, academic honesty, prudence and interest and authority conflicts. All of them were previously validated by two experts in bioethics. Results. Intellectual honesty showed a weak conflict between the student of Human’s Communication and Occupational Therapy, while all of the students did not show any interest’s conflict. With respect to the rest of the conflicts evaluated, the values reached an intermediate value, showing a moderate conflict. Conclusion. The students of Escuela Superior de Rehabilitación solve their bioethical conflicts by means of a teleological viewpoint.

REFERENCES

1. Blackmer J. Medical-ethics teaching in Canadian physical medicine and rehabilitation residency training programs. Ann R Coll Physicians Surg Can 2002; 35(8 Suppl.); 574-8.

2. Culver CM. Basic curricular goals in medical ethics. N Engl J Med 1985; 312: 253-6.

3. General Standards of Accreditation. Ottawa: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada: 1997. Satndard B.V.:3 Available from: repsc.medical.org/English/residency/ accreditation/genstandarsds_e html#B.V.

4. Hernández A. Bioética General. México, D.F.: Manual Moderno; 2002, p. 23-30.

5. Jonsen AR. Introduction. In: Clinical Ethics. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 1998: p. 1-12.

6. Ladrière J. El sentido de la bioética. Acta Bioethica 2000; 2: 197-218.

7. La Puma J. Medical Ethics: Consultations in clinical ethics- Inssues and Questions in 27 Cases. West J Med 1987; 146: 633-7.

8. La Rocca. La investigación biomédica y el consentimiento informado en el ámbito de las poblaciones e individuos vulnerables. Acta Bioética 2005; 2: 11.

9. Lisfshitz A. La bioética en la práctica clínica. Dilemas y conflictos cotidianos. Boletín de la Academia Nacional Mexicana de Bioética 2003; 1(1): 4-7.

10. Martin FM, Meter AS. Bioethics for clinicians: 25. Teaching bioethics in the clinical setting. Canadian Medical Association or its licensors. 2000; 200: 164-8.

11. Moreno V, Gómez C. La bioética en el programa de formación de residentes en pediatría. An Pediatr 2003; 58(4): 333-8.

12. Ricoeur P. Sí mismo como otro. Madrid: Siglo XXI; 1996: p. 219.

13. Sinnott-Astrong W. Moral Dilemmas. New-York, NY: Basil Black-Well, INC; 1988, p. 287-311.

14. Tepepa R. Ética médica en la consulta de rehabilitación. Revista Mexicana de Medicina Física y Rehabilitación 2005; 17: 103-10.

15. Turnes FJ. Teaching research integrity and bioethics to science undergraduates. The American Society for Cell Biology. University of South Alabama. 2005; 4: 330-4.

16. Washburn J. Compasión y Bioética. Acta Bioética 2004; 10(2): 235-46.

17. Lisfshitz A. Influencia de la bioética en la ética clínica, Ponencia VII Jornada de Investigación. Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación. México, D. F. 19 al 21 de noviembre del 2008.

18. Adame JH, Cruz YA, Medrano E, De la Garza H. Proceso educativo en la formación de médicos en rehabilitación. Rev Mex Med Fis Rehab 2005; 17(4): 103-10.