Mediazione in sanità. L’arbitrarietà dell’atto medico di imaging ionizzante, il consenso informato e l’opportunità stragiudiziale del D. Lgs. n. 28/2010
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7175/pmeal.v6i3.320Parole chiave:
Informed consent, Patient’s autonomy, Inappropriateness, Ionizing medical imaging, Mediation in healthcareAbstract
[Mediation in health care. Inappropriate use of ionizing tests, informed consent and opportunity of Legislative Decree n. 28/2010]
Inappropriate use of ionizing tests in medicine represents an increasing trend, which causes noteworthy damages to health, as well as a huge increment of health expenditures, waiting lists, organizational conflicts, judicial disputes, and insurance compensations. This phenomenon is strictly related to the key bioethical and legal issue of patient’s autonomy, which is protectable by means of a correct implementation of informed consent. The current practice of the passive signature on incomplete and unreadable informed consent templates belongs to the so-called “event-based” approach. This practice mortifies the patient’s right to decide freely and deliberately, being him unaware of the biological consequences of diagnostic-therapeutic interventions on himself and on his progeny’s health. On the other hand, physicians themselves are not protected, since they can generate arbitrary clinical acts more frequently, with heavy deontological and legal consequences. Conversely, a “process-based” approach is necessary, which conveys informed consent in a series of other clinical and organisational processes towards a full therapeutic alliance among physician and patient. Actually, in both the presence and absence of the inauspicious event recurring also in the area of imaging as well as in other specialist areas, an arbitrary informed consent is the cause of deep conflicts, especially at relational level, between physician and patient. The authors suggest – in both juridical and communication perspectives – that these conflicts deserve to be properly analyzed and brought to the surface by the parties through the tool of mediation in healthcare, provided by Legislative Decree n. 28/2010. This tool is oriented not so much towards a technical solution at all costs, as towards a reconstruction of the care relationship, which unfortunately is lacking in the current way of conceiving and managing informed consent.
Riferimenti bibliografici
Hall EJ, Brenner DJ. Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Br J Radiol 2008; 81: 362-78
Amis ES Jr, Butler PF, Applegate KE, et al. American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine. J Am Coll Radiol 2007; 4: 272-84
Slovis TL, Berdon WE. Panel discussion. Ped Radiol 2002; 32: 242-4
Brink JA, Goske MJ, Patti JA. Informed decision making trumps informed consent for medical imaging with ionizing radiation. Radiology 2012; 262: 11-14
Woods S, Hagger LE, McCormack P. Therapeutic misconception: hope, trust and misconception in paediatric research. Health Care Anal 2012; Feb 18 [Epub ahead of print]
Suva D, Haller G, Hoffmeyer P. Patient information and informed consent in orthopaedic surgery: is it possible? Rev Med Suisse 2011; 7: 2475-7
Manson NC, O’Neill O. Rethinking informed consent in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007
Christie DR. Do written consent forms provide medicolegal protection from litigation in radiotherapy? Australas Radiol 2004; 48: 353-7
Daugherty CK. Impact of therapeutic research on informed consent and the ethics of clinical trials: a medical oncology perspective. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 1601-17
Pape T. Legal and ethical considerations of informed consent. AORN J 1997; 65: 1122-7
Rathor MY, Rani MF, Shah AM, et al. Informed consent: a socio-legal study. Med J Malaysia 2011; 66:423-8
Lidz CW. Informed consent: a critical part of modern medical research. Am J Med Sci 2011; 342: 273-5
Denner SS. The evolving doctrine of informed consent for complementary and integrative therapy. Holist Nurs Pract 2008; 22: 37-43
Marks P. The evolution of the doctrine of consent. Clin Med 2003; 3: 45-7
Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS, Meisel A. Two models of implementing in formed consent. Arch Intern Med 1988; 148: 1385-9
Terranova G, Ferro M, Carpeggiani C, et al. Unreadability of current informed consent forms in cardiology - and how to improve them. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging [In press]
Klein WM, Stefanek ME. Cancer risk elicitation and communication: lessons from the psychology of risk perception. CA Cancer J Clin 2007; 57:147-67
Fagerlin A, Ubel PA, Smith DM, et al. Making numbers matter: present and future research in risk communication. Am J Health Behav 2007; 31(Suppl 1): S47-56
Roach P, Marrero D. A critical dialogue: communicating with type 2 diabetes patients about cardiovascular risk. Vasc Health Risk Manag 2005; 1: 301-7
Sedgwick P, Hall A. Teaching medical students and doctors how to communicate risk. BMJ 2003; 327: 694-5
Julian-Reynier C, Welkenhuysen M, Hagoel L, et al; CRISCOM Working Group. Risk communication strategies: state of the art and effectiveness in the context of cancer genetic services. Eur J Hum Genet 2003; 11: 725-36
Miller M, Solomon G. Environmental risk communication for the clinician. Pediatrics 2003; 112(1 Pt 2): 211-7
Edwards A, Elwyn G. Understanding risk and lessons for clinical risk communication about treatment preferences. Qual Health Care 2001; 10(Suppl 1): i9-i13
Lipkus IM, Hollands JG. The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; 25: 149-163
Dodaro A, Recchia V. Inappropriateness in ionizing imaging. The central node of the informed consent: from "event" model to "process" model. Recenti Prog Med 2011; 102:421-31
Tamburrini O, Dalla Palma F. L’atto medico radiologico, approvato dal Consiglio Direttivo della SIRM in data 2 luglio 2007. Supplemento de Il Radiologo. Genova: Omicron Editrice 2007; pp.1-15
European Commission. Radiation protection 118: referral guidelines for imaging. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radioprotection/publication/doc/118_update_en.pdf - Update Mars 2008 (accessed March 5, 2012)
Malone J, Guleria R, Craven C, et al. Justification of diagnostic medical exposures, some practical issues: report of an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Consultation. Br J Radiol 2011; Feb 22
Brink JA, Goske MJ, Patti JA. Informed decision making trumps informed consent for medical imaging with ionizing radiation. Radiology 2012; 262: 11-4
Picano E. Informed consent and communication of risk from radiological and nuclear medicine examinations: how to escape from a communication inferno. BMJ 2004; 329: 849-51
Picano E. Sustainability of medical imaging. BMJ 2004; 328: 578-580
Watzlawick P, Beavin Bavelas J, Jackson DD. Pragmatics of Human Communication. A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1967
Roberti A, Belotti C, Caterino L. Comunicazione medico-paziente. Urgnano: Alessio Roberti Editore, 2006
Dodaro A. Clinical appropriateness and informed consent in the Italian hospitals. Juridical problems and safeguard of patient’s and physician’s rights. Recenti Prog Med 2011; 102: 296-301
Giannico B (a cura di). La Mediazione civile tra "Fare e Agire", interventi di Moroni E, D’Alessandro M, Zampedri F, De Stefano G, Quattrocolo A, Sticco V, Giannico B. Caserta: Giuseppe Vozza Editore, 2011
Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr, et al. The information imperative: is it time for an informed consent process explaining the risks of medical radiation? Radiology 2012; 262: 15-8
Hoffman FO, Kocher DC, Apostoaei AI. Beyond dose assessment: using risk with full disclosure of uncertainty in public and scientific communication. Health Phys 2011; 101: 591-600
Mendelson RM. For discussion: obtaining consent for ionising radiation: has the time come? J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2010; 54: 472-6
Graham PH. Re: faculty of radiation oncology endorsed guidelines for informed consent: risk description. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2010; 54: 512
FRO Faculty of Radiation Oncology. Guidelines for informed consent, version 2. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists. July 2010. Available from URL: http://www.ranzcr.edu.au
Subramaniam RM, Gibson RN. Radiology teaching: essentials of a quality teaching programme. Australas Radiol 2007; 51: 42-5
Correia MJ, Hellies A, Andreassi MG, et al. Lack of Radiological Awareness in a Tertiary Care Cardiological Centre. Int J Cardiol 2005; 103: 307-11
##submission.downloads##
Pubblicato
Fascicolo
Sezione
Licenza
Gli autori che pubblicano su questa rivista accettano i seguenti termini:
- Gli autori mantengono il copyright e garantiscono alla rivista il diritto di prima pubblicazione del lavoro, sottoposto a licenza Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 License, che consente ad altri di condividere il lavoro a patto di riconoscere la paternità dell’opera e la prima pubblicazione in questa rivista.
- Gli autori possono stipulare accordi contrattuali separati e aggiuntivi per la distribuzione non-esclusiva del lavoro nella versione pubblicata dalla rivista (es. archiviarlo in repository istituzionali o pubblicarlo in un libro), a patto che sia riconosciuta la prima pubblicazione in questa rivista. L’accordo di pubblicazione può essere scaricato cliccando qui e deve essere firmato dagli autori e inviato all’Editore al momento dell’accettazione dell’articolo da parte della rivista.
- Gli autori sono autorizzati e incoraggiati a diffondere il lavoro online (es. in repository istituzionali o sul proprio sito), prima e durante il processo di sottomissione, poiché ciò può portare effetti positivi per la visibilità e la diffusione del lavoro, come una maggiore citazione dell’articolo pubblicato (vedi The Effect of Open Access).
- Gli autori sono autorizzati a pubblicare il lavoro online dopo la pubblicazione, tramite link alla versione pubblicata sulla rivista in formato html
