Couceiro V Azucena, Beca I Juan Pablo
Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, España.
Rev Med Chil. 2006 Apr;134(4):517-9. doi: 10.4067/s0034-98872006000400016. Epub 2006 May 25.
Clinical Ethics Committees and Research Ethics Committees have their own specific roles. The Clinical Ethics Committee's pronouncements have an advisory function, whereas Research Ethics Committees' decisions are binding. This article analyzes the legal impact of the Clinical Ethics Committees' reports. Legal and medical reasoning share the same practical nature. Both can have several correct answers to the same situation. Clinical Ethics Committees deliberate about these alternatives and analyze the involved values. Their conclusions are non-compulsory recommendations. They do not replace nor diminish the doctor's personal responsibility. Even though the Clinical Ethics Committees' reports are not binding, they constitute a sort of "expert's opinion", expressed by qualified professionals, who assume their own professional responsibility as advisors. The members' behavior is necessarily subject to constitutional and legal regulations. When judges review the Clinical Ethics Committee's reports, they must realize that their nature is advisory, and also consider them an essential element to reduce the gap between the medical and legal fields. In this way, the problem of increasingly transforming medicine into a legal issue can be prevented.
临床伦理委员会和研究伦理委员会有着各自特定的职责。临床伦理委员会的声明具有咨询功能，而研究伦理委员会的决定具有约束力。本文分析了临床伦理委员会报告的法律影响。法律推理和医学推理具有相同的实践性质。对于同一情况，两者都可能有多个正确答案。临床伦理委员会对这些备选方案进行审议并分析其中涉及的价值观。其结论是不具有强制性的建议。它们既不能取代也不能减轻医生的个人责任。尽管临床伦理委员会的报告没有约束力，但它们构成了一种由合格专业人员表达的“专家意见”，这些专业人员作为顾问承担着自己的职业责任。委员会成员的行为必然要受到宪法和法律法规的约束。当法官审查临床伦理委员会的报告时，他们必须认识到其性质是咨询性的，同时也要将其视为缩小医学和法律领域差距的一个重要因素。这样，就可以防止医学日益演变成一个法律问题的情况。
