RESUMEN

Resumen: La Ley Nº 18.473 y el Decreto que la reglamenta (385/013) fueron concebidos con la finalidad de dar un marco normativo a la posibilidad que tiene una persona de establecer sus preferencias sobre ciertos actos médicos cuando todavía es capaz de consentir, ejerciendo su autonomía de manera anticipada ante la eventual pérdida de capacidad de decisión. Por lo tanto, el hecho de llevar a cabo o no un procedimiento médico no dependerá de la capacidad de consentir de la persona en ese momento, esto es lo que la diferencia del consentimiento informado habitual.

Abstract: Act 18.473 and Decree 385/013 which regulates it, were intended to provide a normative framework for individuals to state their preferences about certain medical acts when they are still capable of consenting to them, exercising their autonomy in advance, in light of the potential loss of their decision-making capacity. Therefore, the fact of performing or not a medical act, will not depend on the consent capacity of the individual at that precise moment, what differentiates it from the regular informed consent. This article aims to analyse the possible inconsistencies between what the law intended to achieve and what is actually authorized today. Certain aspects studied could at least partially explain why this norm is still very hard to enforce even after being effective for over 12 years.

Resumo: A Lei nº 18.473 e o Decreto que a regulamenta (385/013) foram concebidos com o objetivo de dar um marco normativo à possibilidade de uma pessoa estabelecer suas preferências em relação a determinados atos médicos quando ainda está em condições de consentir; exercer previamente a sua autonomia perante a eventual perda da capacidade de decisão. Portanto, a realização ou não de um procedimento médico não dependerá da capacidade da pessoa de consentir naquele momento; isso é o que o torna diferente do consentimento informado usual. O objetivo deste artigo é analisar as possíveis discrepâncias que existem entre o que se pretendia alcançar ao criar a lei e o que realmente pode ser feito. Certos aspectos analisados poderiam explicar, pelo menos em parte, por que essa lei, que já tem mais de 12 anos de sua promulgação, continua sendo muito difícil de implementar.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

La discrepancia que genera la institución de las instrucciones previas se aprecia en distintos niveles -ético, jurídico social-, y alcanza incluso al ámbito terminológico, esto es, los términos empleados para referirse a esta institución no son en absoluto pacíficos o unívocos: desde testamentos vitales, voluntades o directivas anticipadas, deseos expresados anteriormente, etc., lo que lleva a cierta confusión sobre si se trata o no de la misma figura y a cierta inseguridad jurídica, ámbito por cierto sumamente prolijo en este sentido. No obstante la abundante legislación y doctrina sobre el particular, existe poca información acerca de la forma de registrar el documento, la posibilidad de consultarlo o los límites para su cumplimiento. Este artículo trata de ofrecer mayor luz al respecto, en el seno de la normativa española.

The discrepancy generated by advanced directives is observed in several levels -ethical, legal and social-, and reaches even the terminological field, that is, the terms employed to refer to the issue are not distinct or indifferent at all: from living will to advanced directives to wishes previously expressed, etc., which confers some confusion about whether it refers to the same issue or to some legal insecurity, field otherwise very complex in this sense. In spite of the abundant legislation and doctrine about the issue, there is little information about the way to register the document, the possibility to consult it and the limits about its fulfillment. This article tries to offer more understanding of the issue considering the norms of Spain.

A discrepância que gera a instituição das instruções prévias é apreciada em distintos níveis -ético, jurídico social-, e alcança inclusive o âmbito terminológico, isto é, os termos empregados para se referir a esta instituição não são em absoluto pacíficos ou unívocos: desde testamentos vitais, vontades ou diretivas antecipadas, desejos expressados anteriormente, etc., o que leva a certa confusão sobre se se trata ou não da mesma figura e a certa insegurança jurídica, âmbito por certo sumamente prolixo neste sentido. Não obstante a abundante legislação e doutrina sobre o particular, existe pouca informação acerca da forma de registrar o documento, a possibilidade de consultá-lo ou os limites para seu cumprimento. Este artigo trata de oferecer maior luz a respeito, no seio da normativa espanhola.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This paper aims to discuss the development of the notion that the patient has the right to refuse treatment, and how the Brazilian legal system is dealing with bioethical dilemmas, such as the possibility of exercising autonomy through advance directives. The paper discusses the lack of legislation to regulate important issues in the end of life healthcare, and what ethical guidelines exist, providing physicians with ethical and legal parameters to deal with the patient's will.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This article discusses who can write a valid advanced directive by analyzing the classical theory of disabilities and the introduction of the criterion of judgment in civil law. In the search for the answer of the proposed problem, this article examines how countries that have legislated on the AD deals with it and, such as Brazil, which still has no legislation on policies can advance the issue, equalizing the age criterion with the personality rights of considered incapable.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Nowadays healthcare relationships rest on the recognition of the right of patients to take part in the decisions about their health. This idea is the foundation of the informed consent theory. Nevertheless, problem arises when the patient cannot take part in these decisions because he hasn't enough capacity. Then, another person, a substitute, must decide for him. In Spain does not exist enough clarity about the criteria that must guide the decisions of the proxy. The present work deals with the three criteria developed by the North American jurisprudence. These criteria are: the subjective criterion, the criterion of the substitute judgment and the best interest or major benefit criterion. The subjective criterion is based on the statement of the own patient, usually written in an advance directive or living will. The criterion of the substitute judgment tries to rebuild the decision that the own patient had taken if he remained capable. The criterion of the major benefit tries to protect the well-being of the patient. Traditionally the "better interest" has been to defend the life at any expense, without attending to another type of considerations. Probably it is the moment to look for a new consensus on what today the society has to consider the "better interest" of a patient. Surely this new definition meaning would not stem exclusively from the right to life, but from the conjunction between quantity and quality of life considerations and the freedom of patients, all interpreted in the light of the respect person's dignity.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Muestra que la persona tiene elecciones: decisiones sobre la vida y la muerte. Se trata, la necesidad de mantener una comunicación abierta entre la familia y el equipo médico, ante situaciones de dolor y duelo. Aborda, el miedo al dolor y al deterioro físico, asesoramiento para el paciente y su familia y documentos donde se dejen expresados los últimos deseos del paciente

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Muestra que la persona tiene elecciones: decisiones sobre la vida y la muerte. Se trata, la necesidad de mantener una comunicación abierta entre la familia y el equipo médico, ante situaciones de dolor y duelo. Aborda, el miedo al dolor y al deterioro físico, asesoramiento para el paciente y su familia y documentos donde se dejen expresados los últimos deseos del paciente

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

There are a number of myths about what the law permits concerning the termination of life support, some of which spring from a fundamental misconception of what law is. A serious misunderstanding of the law can lead to tragic results for physicians, health care institutions, patients, and families. These misunderstandings are (1) anything that is not specifically permitted by law is prohibited; (2) termination of life support is murder or suicide; (3) a patient must be terminally ill for life support to be stopped; (4) it is permissible to terminate extraordinary treatments, but not ordinary ones; (5) it is permissible to withhold treatment, but once started, it must be continued; (6) stopping tube feeding is legally different from stopping other treatments; (7) termination of life support requires going to court; and (8) living wills are not legal.

Asunto(s)