medigraphic.com
ISSN 1029-3035 (Electronic)

2019, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Mediciego 2019; 25 (4)

Scientific-technological and bioethical dilemmain the radiation protection

Dornes-Ramón R, Vázquez-Mora Y, Abreu-Figueredo N

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 490-500
PDF size: 397.67 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: exposure to ionizing radiation involves risks and dangers to people's health and to the environment. Therefore, its indiscriminate use must be avoided and radiological protection deficiencies eliminated, aspects that are not exempt from bioethical controversies.
Objective: to describe the main bioethical and scientific-technological dilemmas concerning radiation protection.
Method: the most up-to-date national and international bibliography, available in Internet databases and in printed format, was reviewed. The works that most deeply addressed the bioethical and scientific-technological dilemmas of radiological protection were selected. From them the present article was elaborated.
Development: bioethics daily influences the decisions to be made in medical practice. Due to the particular nature of the doctor-patient relationship, in the clinical practice radiologists may experience bioethical conflicts related to technological development, the deficient doctor-patient relationship and the rights and duties of the latter. It must be won in a radiological safety culture with actions aimed at the protection of human being and the environment.
Conclusions: the main bioethical and scientific-technological dilemmas of radiological protection are related to the indiscriminate use of ionizing radiation, non-compliance with the rules and principles of radiological and bioethical protection, lack of informed consent for radiological studies, as well as the breach of the basic norms of radiological safety contained in control actions to guarantee the protection measures for human being and the environment.


REFERENCES

  1. Núñez-Jover J. La Ciencia y la Tecnología como proceso social. La Habana: Editorial Félix Varela; 2002.

  2. Gunderman RB, Brown BP. Excellence and professionalism in radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol [Internet]. Jun 2013 [citado 2 Abr 2016];200(6):W557-9. Disponible en: https://www.ajronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2214/AJR.12.9130

  3. Alonso-González I, Durán-Delgado M. La protección radiológica del paciente en la práctica médica, amparo legal en la legislación cubana. Cub@: Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo [Internet]. 2005 [citado 2 Abr 2016];5(8):[aprox. 4 p.]. Disponible en: http://ama.redciencia.cu/articulos/8.03.pdf

  4. Wilches-Flórez AM. La Propuesta Bioética de Van Rensselaer Potter,cuatro décadas después. Opción [Internet]. 2011 [citado 2 Abr 2016];27(66):70-84. Disponible en: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/3961004.pdf

  5. Dibarbora EA. Fundamentación de la bioética: una reflexión bioética frente a los avances biotecnológicos. Bioética & Debat [Internet]. Mar 2013. [citado 2 Abr 2016]:[aprox. 12 p.]. Disponible en: http://www.bioetica-debat.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=829

  6. Núñez-Jover J, Macías-Llanes ME. Reflexiones sobre ciencia, tecnología y sociedad. Lecturas escogidas [Internet]. La Habana: Editorial Ciencias Médicas; 2007 [citado 27 Jul 2015]. Disponible en: http://bvs.sld.cu/libros_texto/reflexiones_ciencia/completo_reflexiones.pdf

  7. Contreras-Islas DS. Sobre la urgencia de una bioética global. Revista Digital Universitaria [Internet]. Dic 2017 [citado 1 Ago 2018];18(8):[aprox. 12 p.]. Disponible en: http://www.revista.unam.mx/wpcontent/ uploads/v18_n8_a1_Contreras-Islas-1.pdf

  8. Tepper JE. Ethics in clinical care. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys [Internet]. Oct 2017 [citado 1 Ago 2018];99(2):250-4. Disponible en: https://www.clinicalkey.es/service/content/pdf/watermarked/1-s2.0- S036030161730737X.pdf?locale=es_ES&searchIndex=

  9. Brotherton S, Kao A, Crigger BJ. Professing the values of medicine: the modernized AMA Code of Medical Ethics;316(10):1041-2.

  10. Hryhorczuk AL, Hanneman K, Eisenberg RL, Meyer EC, Brown SD. RadioGraphics [Internet]. Oct 2015 [citado 1 Ago 2018];35(6):1779-88. Disponible en: https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/pdf/10.1148/rg.2015150041

  11. Moënne BK. Profesionalismo en el ejercicio de la Radiología. Rev. chil. radiol. [Internet]. Dic 2017 [citado 1 Ago 2018];23(4):180-1. Disponible en: https://scielo.conicyt.cl/pdf/rchradiol/v23n4/0717- 9308-rchradiol-23-04-00180.pdf

  12. Halpern EJ, Spandorfer JM. Professionalism in Radiology: ideals and challenges. AJR [Internet]. 2014 [citado 1 Ago 2018];202(2):352-7. Disponible en: https://www.ajronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2214/AJR.13.11342

  13. Berlin L. Medicolegal-malpractice and ethical issues in Radiology. Judging the competency of a Radiologist colleague. AJR [Internet]. Ene 2016 [citado 1 Ago 2018];206(1):W29. Disponible en: https://www.ajronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2214/AJR.15.14987

  14. Vaccarezza SL. Ciencia, tecnología y sociedad: el estado de la cuestión en América Latina. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación [Internet]. 1998 [citado 12 Nov 2014];(18):13-40- Disponible en: https://www.oei.es/historico/oeivirt/rie18a01.htm

  15. Berlin L. To whom is the radiologist responsible? AJR [Internet]. Feb 2012 [citado 27 Jul 2015];198(2):W191. Disponible en: https://www.ajronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2214/AJR.10.5520

  16. Rocco C, Garrido A. Seguridad del paciente y cultura de seguridad. Rev. Med. Clin. Condes [Internet]. Ago 2017 [citado 1 Ago 2018];28(5):785-95. Disponible en: https://www.clinicalkey.es/service/content/pdf/watermarked/1-s2.0-S0716864017301268.pdf?locale=es_ES&searchIndex=

  17. Álvarez-Sintes R. La prevención cuaternaria en la atención médica ambulatoria y hospitalaria. MediCiego [Internet]. Mar 2019 [citado 19 Mar 2019];25(1):1-3. Disponible en: http://www.revmediciego.sld.cu/index.php/mediciego/article/download/1416/1536




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com