MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2297145600 · doi:10.1016/j.gaceta.2016.02.005

Conflictos entre la ética enfermera y la legislación sanitaria en España

2016· article· es· W2297145600 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGaceta Sanitaria · 2016
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careEquity (law)Human rightsPolitical scienceAcknowledgementNursingLawSociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidenciar los conflictos éticos que pueden surgir entre los discursos legal y ético, a través de explorar el contenido del Real Decreto-Ley 16/2012 que modifica la ley sanitaria en España y los códigos éticos. Revisión y análisis crítico del discurso de cinco códigos éticos de Enfermería de Barcelona, Cataluña, España, Europa e Internacional, y del discurso de la legislación sanitaria vigente en España en 2013, en los que se identificaron y compararon estructuras lingüísticas referentes a cinco principios y valores éticos del marco teórico de la ética de los cuidados: equidad, derechos humanos, derecho a la salud, accesibilidad y continuidad de los cuidados. Mientras que el discurso ético define la función enfermera en función de la equidad, el reconocimiento de los derechos humanos, el derecho a la salud, la accesibilidad y la continuidad de los cuidados de la persona, el discurso legal se vertebra sobre el concepto de beneficiario o asegurado. La divergencia entre el discurso ético y legal puede producir conflictos éticos que afecten negativamente a la práctica de la profesión enfermera. La aplicación del RDL 16/2012 promueve un marco de acción que impide que los profesionales enfermeros presten sus cuidados a colectivos no asegurados, lo que atenta contra los derechos humanos y los principios de la ética de los cuidados. To identify the ethical conflicts that may arise between the nursing codes of ethics and the Royal Decree-law 16/2012 modifying Spanish health regulations. We conducted a review and critical analysis of the discourse of five nursing codes of ethics from Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, Europe and International, and of the discourse of the Spanish legislation in force in 2013. Language structures referring to five different concepts of the theoretical framework of care were identified in the texts: equity, human rights, right to healthcare, access to care, and continuity of care. Codes of ethics define the function of nursing according to equity, acknowledgement of human rights, right to healthcare, access to care and continuity of care, while legal discourse hinges on the concept of beneficiary or being insured. The divergence between the code of ethics and the legal discourse may produce ethical conflicts that negatively affect nursing practice. The application of RDL 16/2012 promotes a framework of action that prevents nursing professionals from providing care to uninsured collectives, which violates human rights and the principles of care ethics.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.021

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.376 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it