Systematization of results from the first ten years of the Medical Ethics Tribunal of the Uruguayan Medical Association

Abstract

Mandatory medical membership is the exclusive jurisdiction for the adjudication of ethical responsibilities of physicians in Uruguay.
Objectives: To systematize the results of the first ten years of mandatory membership, to learn about the number of complaints and their historical evolution, to identify relevant characteristics of the complaints, the complainants, and the physicians accused of alleged breaches of medical ethics, to examine the features and outcomes of the proceedings, and to document the ethical and legal standards referenced by the courts in punitive rulings.
Method: Publicly accessible sources of information were analyzed, including rulings from the Ethics Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, Resolutions from the Ministry of Public Health, and data regarding TEM’s (Tribunal de Ética Médica or Medical Ethics Tribunal) activities found in the annual reports of the CMU (Colegio Médico del Uruguay or Medical Association of Uruguay).
Results: As of the report’s closing date, 100 final rulings had been published. The reporting individuals were primarily individuals (n=85), with most of them being medical professionals (n=56). The remaining 29 reporting individuals included patients, patients’ family members, or other community members. There were 15 complaints filed by institutions: 8 private institutions and 7 public institutions. Most of the allegations were initiated by physicians or medical institutions (n=63). The reports involved 131 physicians, of whom 89 were male (male-to-female ratio:   0.68), with an average age of 52 years. The final rulings established that 71 physicians had committed the alleged ethical misconduct.
Conclusions: 1. There was a degree of stability in the number of admitted allegations, with a trend toward growth. 2. The group of individuals who were reported is characterized by a higher proportion of males and tends to be older compared to the average. They also have a greater exposure to emergency or inpatient services, surgical specialties, or fields involving invasive procedures, as well as holding positions in management, administration, or politics. 3. Most of the investigations and sanctions issued stemmed from conflicts within healthcare teams. 4. The most severe sanctions resulted from conflicts with patients or their families, particularly those involving abusive acts with sexual connotations. 5. The punitive rulings were based on various legal standards, including recent references to international conventions and national human rights legislation.