医生行使诊断权

Piotr Szudejko
{"title":"医生行使诊断权","authors":"Piotr Szudejko","doi":"10.14746/spp.2024.1.45.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The subject of the article is a presentation of the concept of the patient’s subjective right to a doctor’s diagnosis.The starting point is a discussion of the clinical diagnostic process currently used in medicine, as well as the clinical decision-making. In the literature, a fairly widely accepted division of clinical diagnostics is used, which breaks diagnostics down into the following elements: subjective examination (interview conducted with the patient or their family), physical examination (determining symptoms using basic methods) and additional examination (using technological advances to determine symptoms, e.g. CT scan). It is indicated that legal provisions do not take into account the abovementioned division, which may cause interpretation difficulties when assessing the possibility of factual guardian consenting to the medical examination. Also, the clinical decision-making stage has been distinguished, which is the basis for the  herapeutic decision and, consequently, determines the success of treatment. Next, the patient’s right to information on their health is discussed, which is considered a part of a broader right to information about oneself. Justifications for medical truthfulness are presented as well as an exception to this rule – the so-called therapeutic privilege. Next, the postulated right to diagnosis is discussed, which consists of the following specific rights: the right to form a diagnosis, the right to be informed of a diagnosis, the right to information about the impossibility of a diagnosis, and finally, the right to remain in ignorance. Legal provisions and principles of medical deontology, from which the above law can be derived, are also discussed. The conclusion of the article is that the right to a diagnosis can be justified on the basis of the currently applicable laws and in this respect no legislative initiative is necessary.","PeriodicalId":176818,"journal":{"name":"Studia Prawa Publicznego","volume":"19 43","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Realizacja prawa do diagnozy przez lekarza\",\"authors\":\"Piotr Szudejko\",\"doi\":\"10.14746/spp.2024.1.45.4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The subject of the article is a presentation of the concept of the patient’s subjective right to a doctor’s diagnosis.The starting point is a discussion of the clinical diagnostic process currently used in medicine, as well as the clinical decision-making. In the literature, a fairly widely accepted division of clinical diagnostics is used, which breaks diagnostics down into the following elements: subjective examination (interview conducted with the patient or their family), physical examination (determining symptoms using basic methods) and additional examination (using technological advances to determine symptoms, e.g. CT scan). It is indicated that legal provisions do not take into account the abovementioned division, which may cause interpretation difficulties when assessing the possibility of factual guardian consenting to the medical examination. Also, the clinical decision-making stage has been distinguished, which is the basis for the  herapeutic decision and, consequently, determines the success of treatment. Next, the patient’s right to information on their health is discussed, which is considered a part of a broader right to information about oneself. Justifications for medical truthfulness are presented as well as an exception to this rule – the so-called therapeutic privilege. Next, the postulated right to diagnosis is discussed, which consists of the following specific rights: the right to form a diagnosis, the right to be informed of a diagnosis, the right to information about the impossibility of a diagnosis, and finally, the right to remain in ignorance. Legal provisions and principles of medical deontology, from which the above law can be derived, are also discussed. The conclusion of the article is that the right to a diagnosis can be justified on the basis of the currently applicable laws and in this respect no legislative initiative is necessary.\",\"PeriodicalId\":176818,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studia Prawa Publicznego\",\"volume\":\"19 43\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studia Prawa Publicznego\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14746/spp.2024.1.45.4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Prawa Publicznego","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/spp.2024.1.45.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

文章的主题是介绍病人对医生诊断的主观权利这一概念。文章的出发点是讨论目前医学中使用的临床诊断过程以及临床决策。在文献中,临床诊断的划分得到了相当广泛的认可,它将诊断细分为以下内容:主观检查(与患者或其家属进行面谈)、体格检查(使用基本方法确定症状)和附加检查(使用先进技术确定症状,如 CT 扫描)。据指出,法律规定没有考虑到上述划分,这可能会在评估事实监护人同意医疗检查的可能性时造成解释上的困难。此外,还对临床决策阶段进行了区分,该阶段是治疗决策的基础,因此决定着治疗的成败。接下来,讨论了病人对其健康状况的知情权,这被认为是更广泛的知情权的一部分。本文提出了医学真实性的理由以及这一规则的例外情况--所谓的治疗特权。接下来,讨论了假定的诊断权,它包括以下具体权利:形成诊断的权利、获知诊断的权 利、获知诊断不可能的权利,最后是保持无知的权利。文章还讨论了医学义务论的法律规定和原则,上述法律可以从这些规定和原则中得出。文章的结论是,根据目前适用的法律,诊断权是合理的,在这方面没有必要采取立法措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Realizacja prawa do diagnozy przez lekarza
The subject of the article is a presentation of the concept of the patient’s subjective right to a doctor’s diagnosis.The starting point is a discussion of the clinical diagnostic process currently used in medicine, as well as the clinical decision-making. In the literature, a fairly widely accepted division of clinical diagnostics is used, which breaks diagnostics down into the following elements: subjective examination (interview conducted with the patient or their family), physical examination (determining symptoms using basic methods) and additional examination (using technological advances to determine symptoms, e.g. CT scan). It is indicated that legal provisions do not take into account the abovementioned division, which may cause interpretation difficulties when assessing the possibility of factual guardian consenting to the medical examination. Also, the clinical decision-making stage has been distinguished, which is the basis for the  herapeutic decision and, consequently, determines the success of treatment. Next, the patient’s right to information on their health is discussed, which is considered a part of a broader right to information about oneself. Justifications for medical truthfulness are presented as well as an exception to this rule – the so-called therapeutic privilege. Next, the postulated right to diagnosis is discussed, which consists of the following specific rights: the right to form a diagnosis, the right to be informed of a diagnosis, the right to information about the impossibility of a diagnosis, and finally, the right to remain in ignorance. Legal provisions and principles of medical deontology, from which the above law can be derived, are also discussed. The conclusion of the article is that the right to a diagnosis can be justified on the basis of the currently applicable laws and in this respect no legislative initiative is necessary.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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