Objective:

Ethical issues are extremely relevant in theoretical discussions in medicine, through the present article we intend to characterize patients with urologic conditions whose cases prompted consultations with the Clinical Ethics Service (CES) at a level-IV hospital in order to understand the prevalent ethical dilemmas encountered in the urological practice and their approach.

Materials and Methods:

A descriptive study in which we performed a retrospective review of the clinical history of 20 urologic patients who were the subject of interconsultations with the CES of a level-IV hospital. We evaluated the frequency of the following variables: diagnosis, functional and clinical status at the time of the diagnosis, duration of disease evolution, and the type of ethical dilemma that prompted an interconsultation.

Results:

Since January 2018, the CES at Hospital Universitario San Ignacio has received 1,123 interconsultation requests, and a significant increase in them has been observed due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Out of these interconsultations, only thirteen corresponded to patients with a urological diagnosis, and seven involved secondary urological compromise. The most frequent diagnosis was stage-IV prostate cancer, followed by advanced urothelial carcinoma. Proper treatment prevailed; only three cases were diagnosed at this stage, and they could not receive treatment. The main ethical dilemma involved treatment proportionality, in two cases, regarding patient autonomy, including one euthanasia request.

Conclusion:

The established screening methods and effective early treatments are could lead to a low frequency of extreme clinical situations in which decision have to be made at the end of life, which would then be geared towards therapeutical reorientation, end-of-life protocols or euthanasia.

        · resumo em Espanhol     · texto em Espanhol     · Espanhol ( pdf )