ETHICS: THE JOURNEY IN SEARCH OF A SATISFYING LIFE.
Barra lateral del artículo
Publicado:
ene 3, 2022
Palabras clave:
bioethics, nephrology, personal autonomy
Contenido principal del artículo
Resumen
Background: Health professionals must change the ethics of the "third person", where moral actions carried out by other people are judged as correct / incorrect, for the ethics of the first person oriented to personal excellence, vocation to good and to dignity of a person. Objective: To explore the knowledge and ethical training of health professionals working in the field of Nephrology. Method: A survey of 37 items on the basic notions of ethics was applied to the participants of the annual IMIN Meeting. Results: 85 surveys were obtained, 79% think that the laws enacted today respond to economic interests; 82% express that we cannot accept moral absolutes, however, 89% think that practical reason that directs our behavior recognizes human good in search of plenitude. 44% feel that it is not possible to act according to justice on a regular basis, and 94% express that virtue ethics look to the integral good of the person. Conclusions: The philosophical reflection, so typical of the human being, constitutes an ethical requirement in search of the truth of the good that must be chosen to achieve fullness, in the work of health agents in the field of Nephrology.
Keywords: bioethics, nephrology, personal autonomy.
Descargas
Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.
Detalles del artículo
Cómo citar
Quintanilla Guillermo, C., Aguiñaga-Chiñas, N., Gracida Juárez, C., Medeiros, M., Mendoza Sánchez, F., Silva García, C. G., … Reyes Acevedo, R. (2022). ETHICS: THE JOURNEY IN SEARCH OF A SATISFYING LIFE. Enfermería Investiga, 7(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.31243/ei.uta.v7i1.1471.2022
Sección
Artículo original
Citas
1. Llano A. La vida lograda. Vol. 89. Barcelona: Ariel, 2002.
2. Betancur Jiménez GE. La ética y la moral: paradojas del ser humano. Revista CES Psicología 2016;9(1):109-21. doi: 10.21615/cesp.9.1.7
3. Lipovetsky G. El crepúsculo del deber. Barcelona: Anagrama. 2002.
4. Carlin WB, Strong KC. A critique of Western philosophical ethics: Multidisciplinary alternatives for framing ethical dilemmas. J Bus Ethics 1995(14): 387–396. doi: 10.1007/BF00872100
5. Pérez-Oliva Díaz JF, Cabrera Andrade MB, Llantá Abreu MC, Monzón Pérez ME. Necesidades de aprendizaje en bioética de residentes y especialistas de Nefrología en Cuba. Revista Habanera de Ciencias Médicas, 2017;16(1):123-36. Disponible en http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1729-519X2017000100012&lng=es&tlng=es.
6. Leach DC. Professionalism: the formation of physicians. Am J Bioeth. 2004 Spring;4(2):11-2. doi: 10.1162/152651604323097619
7. Kainer G, Fetherstonhaugh D; CARI. The CARI guidelines. Ethical considerations. Nephrology (Carlton). 2010 Apr;15 Suppl 1:S12-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1797.2010.01225.x
8. Back AL, Arnold RM. Discussing prognosis: "how much do you want to know?" talking to patients who are prepared for explicit information. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(25):4209-4213. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.007
9. Pardo F, Pons JA, Castells L, Colmenero J, Gómez MÁ, Lladó L, Pérez B, Prieto M, Briceño J. VI consensus document by the Spanish Liver Transplantation Society. VI documento de consenso de la sociedad española de trasplante hepático (SETH). Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;41(6):406-421. doi: 10.1016/j.gastrohep.2018.05.012
10. Morey-Molina A, Rodríguez-Jornet Á, Monfá-Bosch JM, Torquet-Escuder P, González-Álvarez MT, Sánchez-Casajús ÁA, et al. Ética y nefrología. Consensos de la Sociedad Española de Diálisis y Trasplante (SEDYT). Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;27(3):102-7. https://fedialisis.com/docs/consensos-sedyt/etica-y-nefrologia.pdf
11. Martin DE, Harris D, Jha V, Segantini L, Demme RA, Le TH, McCann L, Sands JM, Vong G, Wolpe PR, Fontana M, London GM, Vanderhaegen B, Vanholder R, y ASN-ERA-EDTA-ISN Joint Working Group on Ethical Issues in Nephrology. Ethical challenges in nephrology: a call for action. Nature Reviews Nephrology . 2020;16(10):603-13. doi: 10.1038/s41581-020-0295-4
12. Jagsi R, Lehmann LS. The ethics of medical education. BMJ. 2004;329(7461):332-334. doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7461.332
13. Bauman, Z. Modernidad Líquida. Buenos Aires: FCE. En Beck, U. 1998. ¿ Qué es la globalización. 2003.
14. Rothstein MA. The role of law in the development of American bioethics. J Int Bioethique. 2009; Dec;20(4):73-84, 110-1. doi: 10.3917/jib.204.0073
15. Piciocchi C. Bioethics and law: between values and rules. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies. 2005;12(2):471-82. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls/vol12/iss2/6
16. Kemparaj VM, Panchmal GS, Jayakumar H, Kadalur UG, Dentistry E. Qualitative assessment of ethical issues in dental practice: An expert opinion. J Educ Ethics Dent. 2016;6(1):20. doi: 10.4103/0974-7761.216513
17. Mascaro S, Korb K, Nicholson A, Woodberry O. Evolving ethics: the new science of good and evil: Andrews UK Limited; 2015.
18. Jimenez M. Empeiria and Good Habits in Aristotle's Ethics. Journal of the History of Philosophy. 2019;57(3):363-89. DOI: 10.1353/hph.2019.0051
19. Bhatt SR. Freedom and Responsibility. Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research. 2018;35(3):585-602. Doi: 10.1007/s40961-018-0157-7
20. Sheldon KM, Gordeeva T, Leontiev D, Lynch MF, Osin E, Rasskazova E, et al. Freedom and responsibility go together: Personality, experimental, and cultural demonstrations. Journal of Research in Personality. 2018;73:63-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.007
21. Iaccarino M. Science and ethics. As research and technology are changing society and the way we live, scientists can no longer claim that science is neutral but must consider the ethical and social aspects of their work. EMBO Rep. 2001;2(9):747-750. doi: 10.1093/embo-reports/kve191
22. Matas JAV. Values and science: an analysis the ethics in the science. Sociol Int J. 2018;2(3):257-265. DOI: 10.15406/sij.2018.02.00056
23. Lorenzo Izquierdo D. Teorías bioéticas, protección de la vida y ley natural. Cuad. bioét, 2019,30(100): 263-274. DOI: 10.30444/CB.38
24. Drane JF. Equality and justice in medicine: a paradigm of Uncertainty. Bioethikos Centro Universitário São Camilo; 2009;3(1): 33-40.
25. Ayerbe García-Monzón L, Pérez-Piñar López M, Pereira Sanz S, González López E. Ética de la virtud, reencontrando el sentido de la clínica. SEMERGEN, Soc. Esp. Med. Rural Gen.(Ed. Impr.). 2015;41(6):346-347. DOI: 10.1016/j.semerg.2014.06.014
2. Betancur Jiménez GE. La ética y la moral: paradojas del ser humano. Revista CES Psicología 2016;9(1):109-21. doi: 10.21615/cesp.9.1.7
3. Lipovetsky G. El crepúsculo del deber. Barcelona: Anagrama. 2002.
4. Carlin WB, Strong KC. A critique of Western philosophical ethics: Multidisciplinary alternatives for framing ethical dilemmas. J Bus Ethics 1995(14): 387–396. doi: 10.1007/BF00872100
5. Pérez-Oliva Díaz JF, Cabrera Andrade MB, Llantá Abreu MC, Monzón Pérez ME. Necesidades de aprendizaje en bioética de residentes y especialistas de Nefrología en Cuba. Revista Habanera de Ciencias Médicas, 2017;16(1):123-36. Disponible en http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1729-519X2017000100012&lng=es&tlng=es.
6. Leach DC. Professionalism: the formation of physicians. Am J Bioeth. 2004 Spring;4(2):11-2. doi: 10.1162/152651604323097619
7. Kainer G, Fetherstonhaugh D; CARI. The CARI guidelines. Ethical considerations. Nephrology (Carlton). 2010 Apr;15 Suppl 1:S12-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1797.2010.01225.x
8. Back AL, Arnold RM. Discussing prognosis: "how much do you want to know?" talking to patients who are prepared for explicit information. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(25):4209-4213. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.007
9. Pardo F, Pons JA, Castells L, Colmenero J, Gómez MÁ, Lladó L, Pérez B, Prieto M, Briceño J. VI consensus document by the Spanish Liver Transplantation Society. VI documento de consenso de la sociedad española de trasplante hepático (SETH). Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;41(6):406-421. doi: 10.1016/j.gastrohep.2018.05.012
10. Morey-Molina A, Rodríguez-Jornet Á, Monfá-Bosch JM, Torquet-Escuder P, González-Álvarez MT, Sánchez-Casajús ÁA, et al. Ética y nefrología. Consensos de la Sociedad Española de Diálisis y Trasplante (SEDYT). Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;27(3):102-7. https://fedialisis.com/docs/consensos-sedyt/etica-y-nefrologia.pdf
11. Martin DE, Harris D, Jha V, Segantini L, Demme RA, Le TH, McCann L, Sands JM, Vong G, Wolpe PR, Fontana M, London GM, Vanderhaegen B, Vanholder R, y ASN-ERA-EDTA-ISN Joint Working Group on Ethical Issues in Nephrology. Ethical challenges in nephrology: a call for action. Nature Reviews Nephrology . 2020;16(10):603-13. doi: 10.1038/s41581-020-0295-4
12. Jagsi R, Lehmann LS. The ethics of medical education. BMJ. 2004;329(7461):332-334. doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7461.332
13. Bauman, Z. Modernidad Líquida. Buenos Aires: FCE. En Beck, U. 1998. ¿ Qué es la globalización. 2003.
14. Rothstein MA. The role of law in the development of American bioethics. J Int Bioethique. 2009; Dec;20(4):73-84, 110-1. doi: 10.3917/jib.204.0073
15. Piciocchi C. Bioethics and law: between values and rules. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies. 2005;12(2):471-82. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls/vol12/iss2/6
16. Kemparaj VM, Panchmal GS, Jayakumar H, Kadalur UG, Dentistry E. Qualitative assessment of ethical issues in dental practice: An expert opinion. J Educ Ethics Dent. 2016;6(1):20. doi: 10.4103/0974-7761.216513
17. Mascaro S, Korb K, Nicholson A, Woodberry O. Evolving ethics: the new science of good and evil: Andrews UK Limited; 2015.
18. Jimenez M. Empeiria and Good Habits in Aristotle's Ethics. Journal of the History of Philosophy. 2019;57(3):363-89. DOI: 10.1353/hph.2019.0051
19. Bhatt SR. Freedom and Responsibility. Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research. 2018;35(3):585-602. Doi: 10.1007/s40961-018-0157-7
20. Sheldon KM, Gordeeva T, Leontiev D, Lynch MF, Osin E, Rasskazova E, et al. Freedom and responsibility go together: Personality, experimental, and cultural demonstrations. Journal of Research in Personality. 2018;73:63-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.007
21. Iaccarino M. Science and ethics. As research and technology are changing society and the way we live, scientists can no longer claim that science is neutral but must consider the ethical and social aspects of their work. EMBO Rep. 2001;2(9):747-750. doi: 10.1093/embo-reports/kve191
22. Matas JAV. Values and science: an analysis the ethics in the science. Sociol Int J. 2018;2(3):257-265. DOI: 10.15406/sij.2018.02.00056
23. Lorenzo Izquierdo D. Teorías bioéticas, protección de la vida y ley natural. Cuad. bioét, 2019,30(100): 263-274. DOI: 10.30444/CB.38
24. Drane JF. Equality and justice in medicine: a paradigm of Uncertainty. Bioethikos Centro Universitário São Camilo; 2009;3(1): 33-40.
25. Ayerbe García-Monzón L, Pérez-Piñar López M, Pereira Sanz S, González López E. Ética de la virtud, reencontrando el sentido de la clínica. SEMERGEN, Soc. Esp. Med. Rural Gen.(Ed. Impr.). 2015;41(6):346-347. DOI: 10.1016/j.semerg.2014.06.014