de Hoyos A, Altamirano-Bustamante NF, Altamirano-Bustamante MM

Language: Spanish
References: 31
Page: 257-264
PDF size: 148.70 Kb.

ABSTRACT

In the case of an alteration of sex differentiation in which healthcare personnel must decide whether or not to reassign the patient’s gender, an analysis of the recent modifications to Mexican law is considered along with how these modifications impact the child’s treatment. Considering constitutional reforms and international conventions signed in Mexico, we studied the impact of the obligations to provide information and respect the opinion of children as well as the consequences that the parent or guardian of the minor has on pediatric practice. It is also established how respect along with ethical considerations for patient dignity together may provide answers to some difficult cases.

REFERENCES

1. Nava-Diosdado R, Flores-Cisneros C, Méndez-Jiménez J, Serrano-Zamago A, de Hoyos-Bermea A, Ricco-Monge S, et al. Valores en Medicina: etnografía de sus representaciones en un hospital de cardiología en México. Cuicuilco 2011;18:115-132.

2. 2. Altamirano-Bustamante NF, Bobadilla-Aguirre A, Altamirano-Bustamante E, Garduño-Espinosa J, Ávila-Osorio MT, Muñoz-Hernández O, et al. ¿Cómo prepararnos para la deliberación ética en la práctica clínica en pediatría? Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex 2010;67:188-195.

3. 3. Wendler D, Rid A. Systematic review: the effect on surrogates of making treatment decisions for others. Ann Intern Med 2011;154:336-346.

4. 4. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.

5. 5. Sulmasy D. Dignity and bioethics: history, theory, and selected applications. Human Dignity and Bioethics: Essays Comissioned by the President’s Council on Bioethics. Washington: US Government Printing Office; 2008. pp. 469-504. Disponible en: http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/pcbe/reports/human_dignity/chapter18.html

6. 6. Lozano R, Gómez-Dantés H, Castro MV, Franco-Marina F, Santos-Preciado JI. Avances en los objetivos de desarrollo del milenio 4 y 5 en Mesoamérica. Salud. 2011;53(suppl 3):295-302.

7. 7. Morlachetti A. 20 años después de la convención de los derechos del niño: su incorporación en las constituciones de América Latina y la jurisprudencia de los tribunales constitucionales. Child Abuse Neglect 2010;34:5-9.

8. 8. Hermer L. Paradigms revised: intersex children, bioethics & the law. Ann Health Law. 2002;11:195-236.

9. 9. Frader J, Alderson P, Asch A, Aspinall C, Davis D, Dreger A, et al. Health care professionals and intersex conditions. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004;158:426-428.

10. Villegas de Posada C. Influencia de Piaget en el estudio del desarrollo moral. Rev Latinoam Psicol 1998;30:223-232.

11. Buchanan A, Brock DW. Decidir por Otros. Ética de la Toma de Decisiones Subrogada. México: FCE; 2009.

12. Del Moral-Ferrer AJ. El derecho a opinar de niños, niñas y adolescentes en la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño. Cuestiones Jurídicas. 2007;1:73-99.

13. Aguilar-Cavallo G. El principio del interés superior del niño y la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Estudios Constitucionales. 2008;6:223-247.

14. Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación. Interés superior del menor. Su concepto. Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta 2011;33:2188. Disponible en: http://ius.scjn.gob. mx/paginas/DetalleGeneral.aspx?ID=162562&IDs=160227 ,160414,161873,162457,162561,162562,162563,162808,1 65299,165382,167644,168776,171416,180583&Dominio= Rubro&TA_TJ=2&Orden=1&Expresion=inter%C3%A9s%20 superior%20del%20menor&Epoca=11100011110001111111 11111111111110011111101111111%20&Apendice=00000000 00000000000000000000000000000000&Clase=DetalleTesi sBL&startRowIndex=0&Hit=6&NumTE=14&Epp=20&maxim umRows=20&Desde=2004&Hasta=2012&Index=0

15. McNab ME, Beca JP. ¿Existen límites en la decisión de los padres sobre el tratamiento de sus hijos? Rev Chil Pediatr 2010;81:536-540.

16. Birchley G. What limits, if any, should be placed on a parent’s right to consent and/or refuse to consent to medical treatment for their child? Nurs Philos 2010;11:280-285.

17. Olivé L. Interculturalismo y justicia social. México: UNAM; 2004.

18. Streuli JC, Michel M, Vayena E. Children’s rights in pediatrics. Eur J Pediatr 2011;170:9-14.

19. Partridge BC. The decisional capacity of the adolescent: an introduction to a critical reconsideration of the doctrine of the mature minor. J Med Philos 2013;38(3):249-255.

20. Hickey K. Minors’ rights in medical decision making. JONAS Healthc Law Ethics Regul 2007;9:100-104.

21. Sánchez Vázquez MJ. Ética e infancia: el niño como sujeto moral. Fundamentos Humanidades. 2007;8:179-192.

22. Wiesemann C, Ude-Koeller S, Sinnecker GH, Thyen U. Ethical principles and recommendations for the medical management of differences of sex development (DSD)/intersex in children and adolescents. Eur J Pediatr 2010;169:671-679.

23. McCullough LB. A framework for the ethically justified clinical management of intersex conditions. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2002;511:149-165.

24. Kant I. Fundamentación de la Metafísica de las Costumbres. Barcelona: Ariel; 1996.

25. Macklin R. Dignity is a useless concept: it means no more than respect for persons or their autonomy. BMJ 2003;327:1419.

26. Aristóteles. Ética Nicomáquea. Barcelona: Gredos; 2007.

27. Nussbaum MC. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2007.

28. Fallat ME, Hertweck P, Ralston SJ. Surgical and ethical challenges in disorders of sexual development. Adv Pediatr 2012;59:283-302.

29. McDowell J. Virtue and reason. The Monist. 1979;62:331-350.

30. Altamirano-Bustamante MM, Altamirano-Bustamante NF, Lifshitz A, Mora-Magaña I, de Hoyos A, Ávila-Osorio MT, et al. Promoting networks between evidence-based medicine and values-based medicine in continuing medical education. BMC Med 2013;11:39.

31. Oakley J, Cocking D. Virtue Ethics and Professional Roles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.