medigraphic.com
ISSN 2594-1518 (Digital)
ISSN 1405-0099 (Impreso)

2011, Número S2

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Cir Gen 2011; 33 (S2)


Riesgo quirúrgico – dispraxis, la ética y la ley

Campos CJA

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 25
Paginas: 157-159
Archivo PDF: 302.99 Kb.


FRAGMENTO

Introducción
El concepto de riesgo es complejo. Hay actualmente una relación difícil entre médicos e instituciones de salud, empresas prestadoras de servicios, la industria de las aseguradoras (calculadoras de riesgos) y el sistema jurídico.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Morris JA, et al. Surgical adverse events, risk management, and malpractice outcome: Morbidity and mortality review is not enough. Ann Surg 2003; 237: 844.

  2. Goodman KW. Ethics and evidence-based medicine - fallibility and responsibility in clinical science. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003: 6.

  3. Brainerd CJ, Reyna VF. Gist is the grist: Fuzzy-trace theory and the new intuitionism. Developmental Review 1990; 10: 3-47, p. 8.

  4. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979; 47: 263-292.

  5. Primo J. Niveles de evidencia y grados de recomendación (I/II). Enfermedad Inflamatoria Intestinal al día. 2003; 2: 39-42.

  6. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science 1987; 236: 280-285.

  7. Kahneman D. Judgment and decision making: A Personal view. Psychological Science 1991; 2: 142-145.

  8. Gyrd-Hansen, D et al. Joint and separate evaluation of risk reduction: Impact on sensitivity to risk reduction magnitude in the context of 4 different risk information formats. Med Decis Making 2011; 31: E1-E10.

  9. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 1974; 185: 1124-1131.

  10. Rescher N. Epistemology: an introduction to the theory of knowledge. Albany, Nueva York, State University of New York Press, 2003.

  11. Parascandola M. Epistemic risk: Empirical science and the fear of being wrong. Law, probability and risk 2010; 9: 201-214.

  12. Rescher N. Choice without preference: A Study on the history and of the logic of ‘Buridan’s Ass’. Essays in philosophical analysis, Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1969: 111-157.

  13. Reyna VF. Theories of medical decision making and health: An evidence-based approach. Med Decis Making 2008; 28: 829-833.

  14. Stewart RM, et al. Trauma surgery malpractice risk. Perception versus reality. Ann Surg 2005; 241: 969-977.

  15. Morris JA, et al. Surgical adverse events, risk management, and malpractice outcome: Morbidity and mortality review is not enough. Ann Surg 2003; 237: 844-852.

  16. Mello MM. The New medical malpractice crisis. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 2281-2284.

  17. Kahneman D. Judgment and decision making: A personal view. Psychological Science 1991: 2: 142-145.

  18. Lipton P. Inference to the best explanation. (2a. ed.) Nueva York, Routledge, 2004.

  19. Mitchell SD. Ceteris Paribus – An inadequate representation for biological contingency. Erkenntnis 2002; 57: 329-350.

  20. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981; 211: 453-458.

  21. Bernard HR, Hartman TW. Complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 1993; 165: 533-5.

  22. Carroll BJ, Birth M, Phillips EH. Common bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy that result in litigation. Surg Endosc 1998; 12: 310-3.

  23. Gouma DJ, Go PM. Bile duct injury during laparoscopic and conventional cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 1994; 178: 229-33.

  24. Dallemagne B, Perretta S, Marescaux J. Education and e-training in NOTES. Epublication: WeBSurg.com 2009; 9. URL: http://www.eats.fr/doi-ed01en0022.htm

  25. Willingham FF, Brugge WR. Taking NOTES: Translumenal flexible endoscopy and endoscopic surgery. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2007; 23: 550-555.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com