Díaz PA

Language: Spanish
References: 18
Page: 8-25
PDF size: 323.98 Kb.

ABSTRACT

This article presents an analysis on the meanings that clinicians and researchers, have regarding the autonomy of the mature minor with autoimmune disease, which could lead to different power practices during the moment of taking the informed consent, keeping in mind the doctrine of the minor mature, it is the duty of the clinicians and researchers to contribute to the moral development or the autonomy of the minor from the same reflection of his practices of power. The objective was to describe the meanings or perceptions of clinicians and researchers, at the time of informed consent, in relation to the autonomy or moral development of the child with autoimmune disease, which arise from their experiences, knowledge and previous conceptions about the child. The methodology used was of a qualitative nature with a subjectivist and interpretative approach and a transversal scope. Semistructured interviews were applied to 21 people, researchers and clinicians, who attend children with autoimmune diseases, whose data were analyzed through the Atlas Ti program. 8.0. In conclusion, the informed consent is a process of assertive communication ethical model that seeks the moral structuring of the child beyond what is perceived by the clinician or researcher, in addition the clinicians and researchers consider that to structure the minor is to perceive him as an autonomous subject; which is possible when it shows adherence to treatment and responsible care independently of the tutor’s support.

REFERENCES

1. Bardin, L. (1991). Análisis de contenido. Madrid,España: Ediciones Akal.

2. Barra Almagiá, E. (1987). El desarrollo moral: unaintroducción a la teoría de Kohlberg. Revista Latinoamericanade psicología, 19(1), 7-18.

3. Benston, S. (2016). Not of Minor Consequence: MedicalDecision-Making Autonomy and the Mature MinorDoctrine. Indiana Health Law Review, 13(1), 1-16.

4. Burke, T. M., Abramovitch, R., y Zlotkin, S. (2005).Children’s understanding of the risks and benefitsassociated with research. Journal of Medical Ethics,31(12), 715-720.

5. Djaballah, M. (2008). Kant, Foucault, and forms ofexperience. Nueva York, NY: Routledge.

6. Goodwin, M. y Duke, N. (2011). Capacity and autonomy:a thought experiment on minors’ access toassisted reproductive technology. Harvard Journalof Law & Gender, 34, 504-552.

7. Gracia Guillén, D. (1997). Bioética y pediatría. RevistaEspecializada de Pediatría, 53(2), 99-106.

8. Hersh, R. H., Reimer, J., y Paolitto, D. P. (1984). Elcrecimiento moral: de Piaget a Kohlberg. Madrid,España: Narcea Ediciones.

9. Hurley, J. C. y Underwood, M. K. (2002). Children’sunderstanding of their research rights before and afterdebriefing: Informed assent, confidentiality, and stoppingparticipation. Child Development, 73(1), 132-143.

10. Kottow, M. (2012). Vulnerabilidad entre derechoshumanos y bioética. Relaciones tormentosas, conflictosinsolutos. Derecho PUCP, (69), 25-44.

11. Labouvie-Vief, G., Grühn, D., y Studer, J. (2010).Dynamic integration of emotion and cognition:Equilibrium regulation in development and aging.En M. E. Lamb, A. M. Freund, y R. M. Lerner (Eds.),The handbook of life-span development, Vol. 2, Socialand emotional development (pp. 79-115). Hoboken,New Jersey, EE.UU.: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

12. Lyon, R. M. (1987). Speaking for a Child: The Roleof Independent Counsel for Minors. California LawReview, 75(2), 681-706.

13. Monatschrift, B. (1984). Michel Foucault. What isEnlightenment? New York, NY: Pantheon.

14. Oliva, F. (2014). El menor maduro ante el derecho.Eidon, (41), 28-52.

15. Packer, M. (2013). La ciencia de la investigacióncualitativa. Bogotá, Colombia: Ediciones Uniandes.

16. Pascal, B. (1986). Pensamientos. Madrid, España: Alianza.

17. Sánchez Vázquez, M. J. (2007). Ética e infancia: elniño como sujeto moral. Fundamentos en Humanidades,VIII (I), 179-192.

18. Serrano López, M. L. (2014). Aspectos éticos de lainvestigación en salud en niños. Revista Colombianade Bioética, 9(1), 183-196.