Un médico especialista, casado, con tres hijos y con una práctica médica muy exitosa por el alto volumen de pacientes que atiende es internado por un deterioro de su salud mental asociado al diagnóstico de síndrome de burnout (o de desgaste profesional). El médico psiquiatra tratante, además del tratamiento que le prescribe, aconseja a su colega un cambio en el estilo de vida actual, que considera destructivo para su calidad de vida y la de su familia. El médico se niega a aceptar las recomendaciones de su médico tratante e insiste en ser rápidamente dado de alta porque debe reanudar la atención de sus pacientes, que ha quedado suspendida por su proceso de hospitalización. De manera enfática defiende su estilo de vida al considerar que su práctica es muy exitosa y le ha dado un buen nombre en la comunidad científica y la población en general. El psiquiatra tratante insiste en la necesidad de continuar su tratamiento hospitalizado, además de buscar el compromiso de su paciente en hacer un alto en el camino y buscar activamente un replanteamiento de su práctica profesional y su vida cotidiana. Este se siente presionado por su colega tratante y lo acusa ante el comité de ética de la institución de interferir indebidamente con su vida privada, a la vez que solicita la alta voluntaria.
El médico psiquiatra acude al llamado del comité de ética y pide le aclaren si su conducta fue inadecuada. El comité estudia el caso y determina que el médico tratante actuó de acuerdo con las buenas prácticas médicas y con sentido de buen colegaje y recomienda al médico paciente seguir las recomendaciones del psiquiatra.
Introduction: A specialist doctor, married, with three children and with a very successful medical practice due to the high volume of patients he attends, is hospitalized for a deterioration in his mental health associated with bornout syndrome. The treating psychiatrist, in addition to the treatment he prescribes, advises his colleague on a change in lifestyle that he considers destructive for his quality of life and that of his family. The doctor refuses to accept the recommendations of his treating physician and insists on being promptly discharged because he must resume the care of his patients who have been suspended due to their hospitalization process. He emphatically defends his lifestyle considering that his practice is very successful and has given him a good name in the scientific community and the general population. The treating psychiatrist insists on the need to continue his hospitalized treatment, in addition to seeking his patient's commitment to stop the change and actively seek a rethinking of his professional practice and his daily life. He feels pressured by his treating colleague and accuses him before the ethics committee of the institution of unduly interfering with his private life while requesting voluntary discharge.
The psychiatrist goes to the call of the ethics committee and asks for clarification if his conduct was inappropriate. The committee studies the case and determines that the treating physician acted in accordance with good medical practices and with a sense of good collegiality and recommends the patient physician to follow the psychiatrist's recommendations.
© 2001-2024 Fundación Dialnet · Todos los derechos reservados