DOCUMENTARY ANALYSIS OF THE NEW CODE OF MEDICAL ETHICS IN THE LIGHT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
Introduction: professional codes of ethics should be updated periodically to respond to criticisms and demands arising from social, technological and scientific changes, especially in the field of human rights; Objectives: to verify the updating of the new Brazilian Code of Medical Ethics in the field of bioethics and human rights; Methods: document analysis of a document in the public domain, with previous definition of categories of analysis and registration units, with reference to the Unesco Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights. Results: the analysis showed the following most prevalent principles: dignity, autonomy, respect for human vulnerability and personal integrity, benefit and harmful effects, solidarity, privacy and confidentiality, non-discrimination and non-stigmatization; Not very well covered: people without the capacity for consent, social responsibility, protection of the environment and future generations; Absent: sharing of research benefits, equality, justice and equity, respect for cultural diversity and pluralism; Final considerations: the Brazilian Code of Medical Ethics values the maintenance of prudential autonomy in the relationship with patients and health professionals. The inclusion of broader social concerns, in a fragmentary and insufficient way, does not yet ensure the broad defense of public health, and the rights of people in vulnerability, who have historically been in a position of disparity. The application of the method in a specific context, of the pandemic, was useful for the understanding of the deontological and principlist limits applied to public health. A future revision is suggested based on Unesco's Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights and the deliberative method for interprofessional decision-making.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
How to Cite

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
openAccess
Andorno, R. (2014). Human Dignity and Human Rights. In H. t. Hank & B. Gordijn (Ed.). Handbook of Global Bioethics (p. 45-57). Springer.
Bauman, Z. (2013). O jóvem como lata de lixo da indústria de consumo. In Sobre educação e juventude: conversas com Riccardo Mazzeo (p. 51-56). Zahar.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press.
Borysowski, J., Ehni, H-J., Górski, A. (2021). Ethics codes and medical decision making. Patient education and counseling, 104(6), 1312-1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.10.034
Brasil. (2013). Lei Nº 12.842, de 10 de julho de 2013. Brasil.
Conselho Federal de Medicina. (2019). Código de Ética Médica: Resolução CFM nº 2.217/2018. CFM.
Dubet, F. (2020). O tempo das paixões tristes. Vestígio.
Evans, D. (2014). Benefit and Harm. In Ten Have, H., & Gordijn, B. (Eds.). Handbook of Global Bioethics (p. 59-73). Springer.
Garrafa, V. (2012). Ampliação e politização do conceito internacional de bioética. Bioetica, 20(1), 9-20.
Garrafa, V. (2014). Bioética. In L. Giovanella, S. Escorel, L. V. C. Lobato, J. C. Noronha & A. Carvalho (Org.). Políticas e sistema de saúde no Brasil (p. 741-757). Fiocruz, Cebes.
Garrafa, V. (2014). Solidarity and Cooperation. In Ten Have, H., & Gordijn, B. (Eds.). Handbook of Global Bioethics (p. 169-186). Springer.
Gefenas, E., & Tuzaite, E. (2014). Persons Without the Capacity to Consent. In Ten Have, H., & Gordijn, B. (Eds.). Handbook of Global Bioethics (p. 85-103). Springer.
Gracia, D. (2010). Pensar a bioética: metas e desafios. Loyola.
Guessous, N. (2014). Non-discrimination and Stigmatization. In Ten Have, H., & Gordijn, B. (Eds.). Handbook of Global Bioethics (p. 139-153). Springer.
Kalyuzhny, R., Makeieva, O., Shapenko, L. (2020). Biomedical ethics and human rights in the context of innovation and information development of Society. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 9(1), 96-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v9i1.2537
Komparic, A., Garon?Sayegh, P., Bensimon, C. M. The promises and limitations of codes of medical ethics as instruments of policy change. Bioethics, 37, 406–415. http://dx.doi.org/: 10.1111/bioe.13143
Lanzer, P. (2022). Let us speak about ethics: call-to-action. European Heart Journal, 43, 1027–1028. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab813
Martin, J. F. (2014). Privacy and Confidentiality. In Ten Have, H., & Gordijn, B. (Eds.)). Handbook of Global Bioethics (p. 119-137). Springer.
McLean, S. A. M. (2014). Respect for Human Vulnerability and Personal Integrity. In Ten Have, H., & Gordijn, B. (Eds.). Handbook of Global Bioethics (p. 105-117). Springer.
Organização das Nações Unidas para a Educação, a Ciência e a Cultura [Unesco]. (2005). Declaração Universal sobre Bioética e Direitos Humanos. Unesco. http:/unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001461/146180por.pdf.
Patuzzo, S. Goracci, G. Ciliberti, R. (2018). Thomas Percival. Discussing the foundation of Medical Ethics. Acta Biomed, 89(3), 343-348. http://dx.doi.org/10.23750/abm.v89i3.7050
Schroeder, D. (2014). Sharing of Benefits. In Ten Have, H., & Gordijn, B. (Eds.). Handbook of Global Bioethics (p. 203-223). Springer Netherlands.
Semplici, S. (2014). Social Responsibility and Health. In Ten Have, H., & Gordijn, B. (Eds.). Handbook of Global Bioethics (p. 187-201). Springer.
Snead, O. C. & Mulder-Westrate, K. (2014). Autonomy and Individual Responsibility. In Ten Have, H., & Gordijn, B. (Eds.). Handbook of Global Bioethics (p. 75-83). Springer.
Soares, F. J. P., Shimizu, H. E., Garrafa, V. (2017). Código de ética médica brasileiro: limites deontológicos e bioéticos. Bioética, 25(2), 244-254.
World Medical Association. (2013). WMA declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. https://bit.ly/2rJdF3M