Ethical approach to the practice of cesarean section

Authors

  • Martha Eugenia Sañudo Velázquez Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey
  • José Carlos Vázquez Parra Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus Guadalajara

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5377/ryr.v44i0.3566

Keywords:

ethics, rationality, caesarean section, cognitive biases

Abstract

In recent years, the accelerated increase of births that are resolved through a caesarean section have alerted public health researchers. However, it is notorious that no one study has revealed a full explanation of this phenomenon. This article argues, through a rational reflection, that there are epistemological errors affecting the perception that people have about the practice of caesarean section. This text considers that the risk assessment when somebody prefer a caesarean section rather than a vaginal births could be affected by cognitive biases or cultural anchors of the medic or the pregnant woman.

Realidad y Reflexión Year 16,No.44, July-December 2016: 82-91

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract
1396
PDF (Español (España)) 1596

Author Biographies

Martha Eugenia Sañudo Velázquez, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey

Licenciada en Teología, Maestra en Filosofía y Doctora en Ética por la Universidad de Lovaina, Bélgica.
Posdoctorado en Comportamiento Organizacional por la Universidad de Tulane, Estados Unidos.
Profesora titular del Departamento de Filosofía y Ética del Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey

José Carlos Vázquez Parra, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus Guadalajara

Licenciado en Derecho, Licenciado en Psicología y Maestro en Educación por la Universidad del Valle de Atemajac, Campus Guadalajara, México.
Doctor en Estudios Humanísticos por el Tecnológico de Monterrey
Profesor del Departamento de Formación Humanística y Ciudadana, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus Guadalajara

Published

2017-05-13

How to Cite

Sañudo Velázquez, M. E., & Vázquez Parra, J. C. (2017). Ethical approach to the practice of cesarean section. Reality and Reflection, 44, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.5377/ryr.v44i0.3566