Consentimiento informado en procesos compartidos

  1. Álvaro Sanz
  2. Francisco Barón
  3. María Luisa del Valle
Cuadernos de bioética

ISSN: 1132-1989 2386-3773

Year of publication: 2022

Issue Title: Ética en la actividad clínica

Volume: 33

Issue: 108

Pages: 149-156

Type: Article

DOI: 10.30444/CB.120 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Cuadernos de bioética


Nowadays, medicine tends towards specialization. But there are also more shared or interdisciplinary processes in which professionals request some type of technique or a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure that must performed by another specialist. In this scenario that involves different professionals, it is reasonable a certain debate about which of them should obtain the informed consent of the patient. The first error would be to pose this process as a confrontation between professionals who derive or delegate their own responsibilities to another. It is, on the contrary, a teamwork and not a mere delegation of duties. On the one hand, it should be the doctor who carries out the technique and, therefore, knows it best as a procedure and is an expert in the early diagnosis and management of side effects, who should inform about the procedure and its risks. And, therefore, it is his duty to obtain the appropriate informed consent. And, since everything is understood as a shared process, it would also be advisable that the physician in charge of the care and follow-up of the patient, and who has taken the initiative to request this technique, had already provided basic information, more focused on the reason for the indication, and that a pre-consent had been obtained, that is a prior elementary verbal consent of acceptance or, at least, of non-rejection. And it would be convenient to record this information in the medical record as well.

Bibliographic References

  • Barón, F., Sanz, A. «Cuidar y asistir: ¿hijos de un dios menor?». Cuadernos de Bioética. 2021; 32(106): 321-327.
  • Bester, J., Cole, CM., Kodish, E. «The limits of informed consent for an overwhelmed patient: clinicians’ role in protecting patients and preventing overwhelm». AMA Journal of Ethics. 2016; 18: 869-86.
  • O’Leary, KJ., MS, Sehgal, NL., Terrell, G., Williams, MV. «Interdisciplinary teamwork in hospitals: A review and practical recommendations for improvement». Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2012; 7: 48-54.
  • Pradesa, J., Borràs, JM. «Debemos eliminar al taxista del comité de tumores». Revista de Calidad Asistencial. 2012; 27: 117-22.
  • Rodríguez Piñero, JE., Tabernero Duque, MJ., Rodríguez Calvo, MS. «Estudio descriptivo sobre la aplicación del consentimiento informado en centros sanitarios de Galicia (España)». Cuadernos de Bioética. 2018; 29: 69-79.
  • Rubiales, AS., Martín, Y., del Valle, ML., Garavís, MI., Centeno, C. «Información al enfermo oncológico: los límites de la verdad tolerable». Cuadernos de Bioética. 1998; 9: 45-54.
  • San Miguel, I., Larumbe, A., Chopitea, A., Centeno, C. «La coordinación de esfuerzos en casos clínicos complejos: un valor añadido de cuidados paliativos en un hospital universitario». Anales del Sistema Sanitario de Navarra. 2010; 33: 315-8.
  • Sanz Rubiales, A. Cosas que he aprendido. Y muchas no están en los libros, La Hojarasca, Madrid, 2020.
  • Sanz Rubiales, A., del Valle Rivero, ML., Fernández González, M., Ferreira Alonso, R. «Teoría y práctica del consentimiento informado». Cuadernos de Bioética. 2016; 27: 69-78.
  • Wiles, K., Nawal, B., Engward, H., Papanikitas, A. «Ethics in the interface between multidisciplinary teams: a narrative in stages for inter-professional education». London Journal of Primary Care. 2016; 6: 100-4.
  • Yara, L. Basta, YL., Bolle, S., Fockens, P., Tytgat, KM. «The value of multidisciplinary team meetings for patients with gastrointestinal malignancies: a systematic review». Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2017; 24: 2669-78.