Jacinto Bátiz, head of the SEMG Bioethics Group.
Technology has allowed Medicine to advance by leaps and bounds in recent years. However, with her and her immediate quickness, she has also lost contact and closeness between doctors and patients. The new mobile applications, which allow us to access our clinical information, speed up procedures, but is it ethical for a patient know the diagnosis of a disease through a message and not in front of a professional?
Hyacinth Batizhead of the SEMG Bioethics Group and director of the Institute for Better Care of the San Juan de Dios Hospital in Santurce, in Vizcaya, assures that “the clinical interview with the patient should not be replaced by the use of mobile applications”, pointing out that “We have begun to normalize this way of communicating.”
“Only in exceptional situations in which a personal relationship with the patient was impossible could it be acceptable, but in no case as a clinical tool to replace the face-to-face doctor-patient relationship”, affirms Batiz to Medical Writing.
In addition, the person in charge of Bioethics of the SEMG, admits that “although there are more and more means to contact patients, such as WhatsApp or email, in extreme situations” it would be necessary that in the consent form for a biopsy “the patient is asked what his preference is when informing him about his result”.
|
“For the doctor it is also more |
Bátiz also points out that “doctors are aware of the impact of a negative result on the patient” and, although they try to be prudent and empathetic when giving the information, “it is more difficult to get that empathy through a mobile to do it in person in front of the patient”.
On the other hand, the doctor admits that it should be taken into account “The great difference between informing and communicating a diagnosis”. “Informing is just conveying the bad clinical news, while communicating it is giving the patient a comprehensive and understandable view of the situation and fostering positive cooperation aimed at the best possible results,” he notes. In this way, as Bátiz assures this newspaper, we can inform through mobile phones, but we cannot communicate, through this medium, everything that the patient needs to know about his illness.
“Patients have the right to be informed of their diagnosis and prognosis, but some conditions must be taken into account in order to be able to provide this information and properly communicate bad news,” he states, admitting that it must be taken into account that bad news “there are actually two”: the one that changes the expectations of the patient and also those of his family. “For this reason, the patient needs more than cold information through a mobile application,” he adds.
Diagnostics by Apps: what does the Medical Code of Ethics say?
“We have to be very careful in this communication, trying to balance the truth of what we report and the delicacy of how we communicate it,” confesses Bátiz, before responding from the point of view of Medical Ethics. “Article 15 of our Code of Medical Ethics says that the doctor will inform the patient in an understandable way, with truthfulness, consideration and prudence”, adding that “when the information includes data on seriousness or poor prognosis, he will make an effort to transmit it delicately in a that does not harm the patient.
Although it may contain statements, data or notes from health institutions or professionals, the information contained in Medical Writing is edited and prepared by journalists. We recommend the reader that any questions related to health be consulted with a health professional.