Abstract
The SAGES Guideline Committee conducted an exhaustive literature review, a Delphi process, and focused interviews with thought leaders and Governing Board members to identify topics to be addressed by a new guideline about the ethical introduction of new technologies and techniques. Their primary goals were to fill knowledge gaps in existing literature and provide a framework useful to surgeons, patients, and health care constituents with regard to managing continual advances in technology. The guideline offers seven evidence-based recommendations, presented with quality ratings of supporting literature and recommendation strengths according to GRADE. Each advises readers on the various considerations important to the introduction, deployment, assessment, monitoring, and value of technological advances applied to clinical practice. SAGES advises all surgeons to consider carefully new technologies and techniques and to adopt a patient-first approach that ensures that self-determination and patient autonomy are preserved through transparency, management of conflicts of interest, and disclosure. Furthermore, it is advised that outcomes data be collected, and that value-based decisions be utilized whenever possible.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Stefanidis D, Fanelli RD, Price R, Richardson W, Committee SG. SAGES guidelines for the introduction of new technology and techniques. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(8):2257–71.
Schweigert FJ. The priority of justice: a framework approach to ethics in program evaluation. Eval Program Plann. 2007;30(4):394–9.
Gillon R. Autonomy and the principle of respect for autonomy. Br Med J. 1985;290(6484):1806–8.
Barone JE, Lincer RM. Correction: a prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. N Engl J Med. 1991;325(21):1517–8.
Stefanidis D, Montero P, Urbach DR, Qureshi A, Perry K, Bachman SL, et al. SAGES research agenda in gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgery: updated results of a Delphi study. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(10):2763–71.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6.
Morrow DR. When technologies makes good people do bad things: another argument against the value-neutrality of technologies. Sci Eng Ethics. 2014;20(2):329–43.
Van Haute A. Managing perceived conflicts of interest while ensuring the continued innovation of medical technology. J Vasc Surg. 2011;54(3 Suppl):31S–3.
Frequently asked questions regarding the revised Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) Code of Ethics on Interactions with Health Care Professionals. Optometry. 2009;80(5):262–6.
Orfanos CE. From Hippocrates to modern medicine. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereo. 2007;21(6):852–8.
Sachdeva AK. Acquiring skills in new procedures and technology: the challenge and the opportunity. Arch Surg. 2005;140(4):387–9.
Holsinger Jr JW, Beaton B. Physician professionalism for a new century. Clin Anat. 2006;19(5):473–9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fanelli, R.D. (2016). Evolving Responsibility for SAGES: New Technology Guideline. In: Stain, S., Pryor, A., Shadduck, P. (eds) The SAGES Manual Ethics of Surgical Innovation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27663-2_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27663-2_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27661-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-27663-2
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)