ABSTRACT
El riesgo es un concepto que suele ser evaluado por los científicos y expertos en salud pública mediante la comparación de probabilidades. Sin embargo, esta perspectiva inscrita en el utilitarismo ético, que considera que la mejor decisión es aquella que tiene menos probabilidad de daño que de beneficio, no contempla aspectos normativos fundamentados en otras perspectivas éticas. La interpretación del origen de las polémicas públicas derivadas de las reacciones de las personas ante los pequeños riesgos de las vacunas con virus atenuados contra el SARS-CoV-2 y la evaluación de las respuestas de las instituciones públicas requiere conocer tanto los aspectos cognitivos que introducen sesgos sistemáticos en la valoración de probabilidades como el marco sociológico, ético y político que contextualiza la gestión de los riesgos en las sociedades modernas. (AU)
Risk is a concept that is usually evaluated by scientists and public health experts by comparing probabilities. However, this ethical utilitarian perspective, which considers that the best decision is the one that has less probability of harm than of benefit, does not consider normative aspects based on other ethical perspectives. Interpreting the origin of public controversies arising from people's reactions to the small risks of attenuated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and evaluating the responses of public institutions requires an understanding of both the cognitive aspects that introduce systematic biases in the assessment of probabilities and the sociological, ethical, and political framework that contextualizes risk management in modern societies. (AU)
Subject(s)
Pandemics , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus , Mass Vaccination , Risk Management , Risk Assessment , Policy Making , Ethical AnalysisABSTRACT
Risk is a concept that is usually evaluated by scientists and public health experts by comparing probabilities. However, this ethical utilitarian perspective, which considers that the best decision is the one that has less probability of harm than of benefit, does not consider normative aspects based on other ethical perspectives. Interpreting the origin of public controversies arising from people's reactions to the small risks of attenuated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and evaluating the responses of public institutions requires an understanding of both the cognitive aspects that introduce systematic biases in the assessment of probabilities and the sociological, ethical, and political framework that contextualizes risk management in modern societies.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cognition , Humans , Public HealthABSTRACT
Overdiagnosis is an emerging and unexpected phenomenon in medicine with multiple causes: social, cognitive and technical. The most prevalent ethical assessment is the utilitarian one: in medicine it is not ethical to carry out any intervention with a negative benefit risk balance. However, there are non-utilitarian moral criteria, based on principles or individual rights, and personal utilities that must also be considered in the decision-making processes. The ethical approach of overdiagnosis has to be carried out from an ethics of responsibility that contemplates principles and consequences assuming that the decisions of managers, clinicians and citizens will introduce different moral perspectives. The solutions go through training and research; have a reliable biomedical knowledge; avoid conflicts of interest, both business and organizational, and improve shared decision-making in the public, clinical and individual spheres.
Subject(s)
Ethical Theory , Ethics, Medical , Medical Overuse , Bioethical Issues , HumansABSTRACT
El sobrediagnóstico es un fenómeno emergente e inesperado en medicina con múltiples causas: sociales, cognitivas y técnicas. La valoración ética más prevalente es la utilitarista: en medicina no es ético realizar ninguna intervención con un balance riesgo-beneficio negativo. Sin embargo, hay criterios morales no utilitaristas, basados en principios o derechos individuales, y utilidades personales que también se han de considerar en los procesos de toma de decisiones. El abordaje ético del sobrediagnóstico tiene que realizarse desde una ética de la responsabilidad que contemple principios y consecuencias asumiendo que las decisiones de gestores, clínicos y ciudadanos introducirán diferentes perspectivas morales. Las soluciones pasan por la formación y la investigación; contar con un conocimiento biomédico fiable; evitar conflictos de interés, tanto empresariales como organizativos, y mejorar la toma de decisiones compartidas, tanto en el ámbito público como en el clínico o individual
Overdiagnosis is an emerging and unexpected phenomenon in medicine with multiple causes: social, cognitive and technical. The most prevalent ethical assessment is the utilitarian one: in medicine it is not ethical to carry out any intervention with a negative benefit risk balance. However, there are non-utilitarian moral criteria, based on principles or individual rights, and personal utilities that must also be considered in the decision-making processes. The ethical approach of overdiagnosis has to be carried out from an ethics of responsibility that contemplates principles and consequences assuming that the decisions of managers, clinicians and citizens will introduce different moral perspectives. The solutions go through training and research; have a reliable biomedical knowledge; avoid conflicts of interest, both business and organizational, and improve shared decision-making in the public, clinical and individual spheres
Subject(s)
Humans , Medical Overuse , Liability, Legal , Decision Making , Ethics, MedicalABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Mass Vaccination/trends , Immunization Programs/trends , 51352 , Parenting , Treatment RefusalABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Primary Health Care/trends , Health Resources/organization & administration , 16672 , Economic Recession , Public PolicyABSTRACT
No disponible
