SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.20 issue1CLINICAL ETHICS: STATUS QUAESTIONIS author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


Persona y Bioética

Print version ISSN 2027-5382
On-line version ISSN 0123-3122

Abstract

SARMIENTO M., Pedro J.; MAZZANTI, María de los Ángeles; REY, Elena  and  ARANGO, Pablo. METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING CLINICAL CASES IN BIOETHICS COMMITTEES: APPROACHES AND PROPOSED SUPPORT. pers.bioét. [online]. 2016, vol.20, n.1, pp.10-25. ISSN 2027-5382.  http://dx.doi.org/10.5294/PEBI.2016.20.1.2.

This paper examines and evaluates the models and the most important methods for solving clinical cases; namely, 1) principlism, 2) deontologism, 3) consequentialism, 4) casuistry, 5) virtue ethics and 6) ethics centered on the person (or "personalist" ethics). The strengths and weaknesses of each are weighed and an instrument is proposed to facilitate this type of analysis. As a group, the preference is for a methodology that articulates three models: the virtue approach, the person-centered approach, and these two in harmony with an ethics centered on principles. The reasons for this comprehensive option are based primarily on recognition of the primacy of the dignity of the human person and on acknowledgement that complex clinical situations require a comprehensive view of both the person and clinical practice. The latter requires virtues, ethical principles and recognition of the human person as being endowed with inherent dignity and, in turn, as the foundation of ethics and clinical practice.

Keywords : Methodology for solving clinical cases; clinical bioethics; principlism; virtue ethics; ethics centered on the human person.

        · abstract in Spanish | Portuguese     · text in Spanish     · Spanish ( pdf )