Crítica a la doctrina y jurisprudencia del daño a la salud en Colombia

Resumen

Colombian doctrine and jurisprudence on health harm are univocal, reductionist and determinist. This situation puts the observance of equality and integral reparation principles in jeopardy. They are reductionists because they turn health harm understanding into only one single epistemological interpretation by neglecting other categories of harms, which should be considered in reparation. This oblique approach also implies that both Colombian doctrine and jurisprudence are determinist regarding health harm since they foster a narrow understanding of it, which points out a predetermined archetype that lacks consistency and obeys a forced deconstruction of what health harm has historically meant. Therefore, it is necessary to critically display a deep analysis on health harm to establish more objective parameters that guarantee an effective protection of rights as well as plausible criteria for reparation, which should be in tune with equality and human dignity principles.