The principle of therapeutic prudence. Beyond the ordinary-extraordinary and proportionate-disproportionate distinctions

Published: June 30, 2019
Abstract Views: 508
PDF (Italiano): 14
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

Traditionally, the question of whether it is obligatory to use a particular therapeutic means was resolved by considering the use of ordinary therapeutic means as obligatory while the use of extraordinary therapeutic means was considered non-obligatory. Following criticism, this distinction has since shifted to the consideration of proportionate versus disproportionate therapeutic means as a way of resolving the question. In this article we intend to show that the two distinctions are not equivalent, and though necessary, are insufficient to qualify good medical action. Therapeutic prudence remains indispensable for identifying the best medical option for each patient.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

How to Cite

Requena Meana, P. (2019). The principle of therapeutic prudence. Beyond the ordinary-extraordinary and proportionate-disproportionate distinctions. Medicina E Morale, 68(2), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.4081/mem.2019.578