Consulta do registo de saúde eletrônico: análise ética de um caso clínico

Ana Carolina Fernandes; Ana Raquel Ramos; André Candelária; Liliane Rocha; Patrícia Barrancos

doi:10.5712/rbmfc15(42)2272

Authors

Ana Carolina Fernandes USF Santa Maria – Tomar (ACES Médio Tejo) - ARS Lisboa e Vale do Tejo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0298-646X
Ana Raquel Ramos USF Vasco da Gama (ACES Lisboa Central) - ARS Lisboa e Vale do Tejo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9078-3966
André Candelária USF Poente (ACES Almada-Seixal) - ARS Lisboa e Vale do Tejo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1605-2564
Liliane Rocha USF S. Domingos de Gusmão (ACES Cascais) - ARS Lisboa e Vale do Tejo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5309-2186
Patrícia Barrancos USF Cuidar Saúde (ACES Almada-Seixal) - ARS Lisboa e Vale do Tejo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7109-5359

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5712/rbmfc15(42)2272

Keywords:

Bioethics, Bioethical Issue, Ethics Committee, Confidential Information, Prostate Specific Antigen.

Abstract

Introduction: Bioethics emerged from the need to implement an ethical code of conduct that would avoid abusive clinical practice carried for centuries. The Deliberative Procedure (DP) applied to medicine helps in making ethical decisions in a well-reasoned and fair manner. This clinical case report is intended to exemplify the importance of applying the deliberative process in clinical practice in general practice/family medicine (GP/FM). Clinical case: Male, 58 years old referenced to urology office visit after positive Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) test. A month after prostatic biopsy he went to the medical consultation with his Family Doctor, believing the result was negative. His family doctor assessed his health electronic record without his authorization, and verified the result of the biopsy was a prostatic adenocarcinoma, without new urology appointment. It was elected the most important ethic problem and defined the action curse that accomplish the legality, publicity and temporary criteria. Conclusions: Whatever the physician decides, it should always be for the benefit of the wearer. DP allows structured decision making so it should be applied in the context of GP/FM in the face of ethical problems.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

(1) Gaspar I. Métodos em bioética clínica. Curso Curricular de Ética Aplicada à MGF. 2019 mai 16-17 - jun 27; Lisboa, Portugal. Esta referência consiste no material didático de um curso por nós frequentado

(2) Altisent R, Carrió FB, Surribas MB, Escribano CC, Vallejo LM, Bernal AM, et al. Guías de Ética em la Práctica Médica. Retos éticos en Atención Primária. Madrid: Fundación de Ciencias de la Salud; 2012; [acesso em 2019 out 29]. Disponível em: https://www.cgcom.es/sites/default/files/retosEticosenAtencionPrimaria.pdf

(3) Gracia D. Deliberation and consensus. In: Chadwick R, Have H, Meslin EM, eds. The SAGE handbook of health care ethics. New York: SAGE Publications; 2011. p. 87-97.

(4) Simões JA. Consentimento informado (Editorial). Rev Port Clin Geral. 2009;25:522-3. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v25i5.10665 DOI: https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v25i5.10665

(5) D’Cruz L, Kaney H. Consent – a new era begins. Br Dent J. 2015 Jul;219(2):57-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.555 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.555

(6) Kantoff PW, Taplin ME, Smith JA. Initial staging and evaluation of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. UpToDate [Internet]. 2020 Jun; [acesso em 2019 Jul 16]. Disponível em: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/initial-staging-and-evaluation-of-men-with-newly-diagnosed-prostate-cancer#H686719874

(7) Klein EA. Prostate cancer: risk stratification and choice of initial treatment. UpToDate [Internet]. 2020 Jun; [acesso em 2019 Jul 16]. Disponível em: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/prostate-cancer-risk-stratification-and-choice-of-initial-treatment#H19

(8) Yang XJ. Interpretation of prostate biopsy. UpToDate [Internet]. 2020 Jun; [acesso em 2019 Jul 16]. Disponível em: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/interpretation-of-prostate-biopsy#H30

(9) Hoffman RM. Screening for prostate cancer. UpToDate [Internet]. 2020 Jun; [acesso em 2019 Jul 16]. Disponível em: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/screening-for-prostate-cancer#H42

(10) Fenton J, Weyrich M, Durbin S, Liu Y, Bang H, Melnikow J. Prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer: evidence review and systematic for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA [Internet] 2018; [citado 2019 Jul 04]; 319(18):1914-31. Disponível em: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/UpdateSummaryFinal/prostate-cancer-screening1?ds=1&s=psa DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.3712

(11) Tomé A, Broeiro A, Faria-Vaz A. Os sistemas de prescrição electrónica. Rev Port Clin Geral. 2008;24(5):632-40. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v24i5.10554 DOI: https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v24i5.10554

(12) Lee LM. Ethics and subsequent use of electronic health record data. J Biomed Inform. 2017 Jul;71:143-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2017.05.022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2017.05.022

(13) Lei no 26 de 22 de agosto de 2016 (PT). Aprova o regime de acesso à informação administrativa e ambiental e de reutilização dos documentos administrativos, transpondo a Diretiva 2003/4/CE, do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 28 de janeiro, e a Diretiva 2003/98/CE, do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 17 de novembro. Procuradoria-Geral Distrital de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal, 22 ago 2016.