PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10961062

[Guidelines in clinical practice. Bioethical considerations].

Abstract

The adoption of guidelines in clinical practice raises questions that can be answered against a background in which professional conduct is compared with deontology, law, and the specific sociocultural context and health policies of institutions. In the scientific community, doubts are raised regarding the relationships between the general recommendations laid down in the Guidelines and the specific nature of every clinical condition; between the "duty of adhering" to Guidelines and the doctor's autonomy, as well as between the adoption, discrepancy and non-adoption of Guidelines and the juridical evaluation of medical liability. The information and individual consent of patients and citizens is of particular importance both with regard to clinical procedures and choices of allocation. In the light of these comments, the authors conclude that Guidelines should not be reduced to a form of automated procedure lacking any responsibility, but should represent a correct synthesis between the objective nature of scientific findings, the subjective condition of the patient and the doctor's autonomy. The application of correctly formulated Guidelines shared by the community means acting in such a way that the "right to health" and "freedom of treatment" can be exercised in respect of shared bioethical principles based on beneficence, autonomy and justice.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D Mazzon. 2000. [Guidelines in clinical practice. Bioethical considerations].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10961062/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

High hopes and automatic escalators: a critique of some new arguments in bioethics.

Two protechnology arguments, the "hopeful principle" and the "automatic escalator", often used in bioethics, are identified and critically analysed in this paper. It is shown that the hopeful principle is closely related to the problematic precautionary principle, and the automatic escalator argument has close affinities to the often criticised empirical slippery slope argument. The hopeful principle is shown to be really hopeless as an argument, and automatic escalator arguments often lead nowhere when critically analysed. These arguments should therefore only be used with great caution.

Bioethics↗