Priority Criteria for the Provision of Medical Assistance Versus Protection of Human Dignity

Ius Novum Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.2478/in-2023-0006
Katarzyna Doroszewska-Chyrowicz
{"title":"Priority Criteria for the Provision of Medical Assistance Versus Protection of Human Dignity","authors":"Katarzyna Doroszewska-Chyrowicz","doi":"10.2478/in-2023-0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article deals with the potential infringement of human dignity through the choice of priority criteria for the provision of medical assistance in an emergency situation, when the treatment can only be provided for one person. The lack of sufficient equipment during the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic is a key example, but examples of acute shortage of medical personnel and various types of equipment are also analysed. The assumption made in the article is that selection guidelines need to be established for medical personnel. The text presents the concept of violation of human dignity and the issue of inability to provide assistance to an adequate number of patients. Then, with the use of the dogmatic-legal method, the proposed patient selection criteria such as age, social position, physical condition, and occurrence of comorbidities are analysed. As a result of the analysis, it is concluded that, due to the protection of human dignity, it is unacceptable to take away the assistance already provided for a patient (disconnection from the apparatus) in order to save the health of another patient. The criterion of assessing the patient’s health condition is unquestionable, whereas the choice of other decisive factors, such as a person’s social standing, may lead to unjustified discrimination and inequality.","PeriodicalId":33501,"journal":{"name":"Ius Novum","volume":"17 1","pages":"89 - 106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ius Novum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/in-2023-0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The article deals with the potential infringement of human dignity through the choice of priority criteria for the provision of medical assistance in an emergency situation, when the treatment can only be provided for one person. The lack of sufficient equipment during the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic is a key example, but examples of acute shortage of medical personnel and various types of equipment are also analysed. The assumption made in the article is that selection guidelines need to be established for medical personnel. The text presents the concept of violation of human dignity and the issue of inability to provide assistance to an adequate number of patients. Then, with the use of the dogmatic-legal method, the proposed patient selection criteria such as age, social position, physical condition, and occurrence of comorbidities are analysed. As a result of the analysis, it is concluded that, due to the protection of human dignity, it is unacceptable to take away the assistance already provided for a patient (disconnection from the apparatus) in order to save the health of another patient. The criterion of assessing the patient’s health condition is unquestionable, whereas the choice of other decisive factors, such as a person’s social standing, may lead to unjustified discrimination and inequality.
提供医疗援助与保护人的尊严的优先标准
摘要:本文通过在紧急情况下提供医疗援助的优先标准的选择,处理了在只能为一人提供治疗的情况下可能侵犯人的尊严的问题。在SARS-Cov-2大流行期间缺乏足够的设备是一个关键的例子,但也分析了医疗人员和各种设备严重短缺的例子。本文的假设是需要为医务人员建立选拔指南。案文提出了侵犯人的尊严的概念和无法向足够数量的病人提供援助的问题。然后,采用教条式法律方法,分析提出的患者选择标准,如年龄、社会地位、身体状况和合并症的发生。分析结果得出的结论是,出于对人的尊严的保护,为了挽救另一个病人的健康而取消已经向病人提供的援助(切断与医疗器械的连接)是不可接受的。评估病人健康状况的标准是毋庸置疑的,而选择其他决定性因素,如一个人的社会地位,则可能导致不合理的歧视和不平等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信