[Who decides what data should be recorded in the medical history in relation to the biological origin?] / ¿Quién decide qué datos deben constar en la historia clínica en relación con el origen biológico?

There is an increasing request by patients or their representatives not to have some data registered in their clinical history or if such data exists to be deleted. Without doubt, this is so because such clinical data is accessed by various professionals who in most cases are not directly involved in caring for such patients. On the other hand, such data is copied and iteratively and unnecessary reproduced in various discharge reports and others forms. The problem arises when such controversial data refer to particularly sensitive clinical aspects such as assisted reproduction techniques, which invades personal and family privacy. Therefore, the question is who determines what data should be recorded in the medical records and according to what criteria should be taken that decision?

[Ethical and legal questions of anonymity and confidentiality in gamete donation]. / Cuestiones éticas y legales del anonimato y la confidencialidad en la donación de gametos.

Spain is the European country where more assisted reproduction techniques (ART) are performed, reaching 9% of newborns. The objective of this article is to introduce the legal framework and to analyze some ethical questions, not without controversy, in relation to the anonymity of gamete donors and the concealment of origin by ART from their children. Spanish legislation establishes the relative anonymity of donors: both gamete recipients and born children have the right to obtain general information about them as long as their identity is not included, but in situations of risk to the life and health of the children allows your bankruptcy. Likewise, an unequivocal right to privacy and confidentiality of submission to the ART is established. The movement aimed at introducing in our country a legislative amendment that ends the anonymity of gamete donors is based on the right of those children to know their biological origin. Along with legal changes, the attitude of parents and professionals must gradually change towards more transparent and responsible communication, based on the experiences of adults conceived by these techniques, and those adopted. Building values such as trust and truth in the family relationships from responsibility requires placing the children, largely forgotten and the most vulnerable part, at the center of the debate.

[Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Involuntary admission yes, involuntary treatment no]. / Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): internamiento involuntario sí, tratamiento obligatorio no.

We had the opportunity to know a judicial decision in relation to a nonagenarian COVID-19 patient, which is clarifying regarding the complex issue of involuntary admission and involuntary treatment of the elderly. The judge authorized the involuntary admission but denied the possibility of imposing medical treatment against the will of the patient. This situation invites us to review the different types of involuntary admission that our legal system provides and how involuntary medical treatment is regulated according to its purpose and the patient's ability to decide. In the field of public health, the determining element to be able to impose any sanitary measure against the will of the patient is the risk to the health of the population. In the case presented, the judge rejects the possibility of authorizing medical treatment for not contributing anything from the point of view of public health. However, it does authorize involuntary admission as it is essential to guarantee isolation.

[The responsibilities arising from the use of information and communication technologies in health professional practice]. / Las responsabilidades derivadas del uso de las tecnologías de la información y comunicación en el ejercicio de las profesiones sanitarias.

The increasing use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in the health setting has given rise to the current phenomenon of eHealth or eMedicine, terms equivalent to the cyberspace concept, but refer exclusively to health. Due to the appearance of Web 2.0 it can be stated that we are dealing with a phenomenon much greater than just using the technologies: we are facing a real social change, giving rise to that called Health 2.0. The legal regulation of this cyberspace requires two different types of rules. Some that regulate cyberspace itself, and others, the actions performed with its use and to those that appear applicable to conventional law. In this latter case, we are referring to the applying of already existing laws to actions performed using ICT, as is the case of medical actions. Within these latter situations, two clearly different ones have to be distinguished: the professional responsibilities arising from medical actions carried out within health organisation settings when the use of ICT is introduced, and those other actions carried out voluntarily, individually and privately, using personal media and devices. It is in these types of actions where the legality, as regards data protection and privacy of the patient, appears to be violated, and at the same time the professional may be held responsible.