过去和现在的生命终结计划:尊重的历史、法律和临床观点。

IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-19 DOI:10.1177/01410768251317843
James David van Oppen, Sarah Gunn, Timothy John Coats, Nataly Papadopoulou, Michaela Senkova, Sarah Tarlow, Elizabeth Wicks
{"title":"过去和现在的生命终结计划:尊重的历史、法律和临床观点。","authors":"James David van Oppen, Sarah Gunn, Timothy John Coats, Nataly Papadopoulou, Michaela Senkova, Sarah Tarlow, Elizabeth Wicks","doi":"10.1177/01410768251317843","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The ReSPECT ('Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment') process was developed in the UK to guide and document conversations and decision-making with patients and their relatives around intervention during critical deterioration. This includes advising whether resuscitation should be attempted when a person dies. Current medical preparation for death is qualitatively different to social behaviours by people in the past and presents some controversies when considering the legal status of death-related decisions. In this article, we discuss our interdisciplinary perspectives as archaeological, historical, legal, medical and clinical psychologist academics following a historico-medico-legal appraisal of the ReSPECT process as situated in the current UK legal and cultural landscape. We review controversies and conundrums, and contextualise and contrast the current position to preparing for death and dying in the past.</p>","PeriodicalId":17271,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"49-56"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11840819/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Planning for end of life in the past and present: historical, legal and clinical perspectives on ReSPECT.\",\"authors\":\"James David van Oppen, Sarah Gunn, Timothy John Coats, Nataly Papadopoulou, Michaela Senkova, Sarah Tarlow, Elizabeth Wicks\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01410768251317843\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The ReSPECT ('Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment') process was developed in the UK to guide and document conversations and decision-making with patients and their relatives around intervention during critical deterioration. This includes advising whether resuscitation should be attempted when a person dies. Current medical preparation for death is qualitatively different to social behaviours by people in the past and presents some controversies when considering the legal status of death-related decisions. In this article, we discuss our interdisciplinary perspectives as archaeological, historical, legal, medical and clinical psychologist academics following a historico-medico-legal appraisal of the ReSPECT process as situated in the current UK legal and cultural landscape. We review controversies and conundrums, and contextualise and contrast the current position to preparing for death and dying in the past.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"49-56\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11840819/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01410768251317843\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01410768251317843","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

英国制定了ReSPECT(“紧急护理和治疗建议总结计划”)流程,以指导和记录与患者及其亲属就严重恶化期间的干预进行的对话和决策。这包括建议当一个人死亡时是否应该尝试复苏。当前的医学死亡准备与过去人们的社会行为有质的不同,在考虑与死亡有关的决定的法律地位时存在一些争议。在这篇文章中,我们讨论了我们作为考古学,历史,法律,医学和临床心理学家学者的跨学科观点,并对当前英国法律和文化景观中所处的尊重过程进行了历史-医学-法律评估。我们回顾了争议和难题,并将当前的位置与过去准备死亡和死亡的位置进行了背景和对比。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Planning for end of life in the past and present: historical, legal and clinical perspectives on ReSPECT.

The ReSPECT ('Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment') process was developed in the UK to guide and document conversations and decision-making with patients and their relatives around intervention during critical deterioration. This includes advising whether resuscitation should be attempted when a person dies. Current medical preparation for death is qualitatively different to social behaviours by people in the past and presents some controversies when considering the legal status of death-related decisions. In this article, we discuss our interdisciplinary perspectives as archaeological, historical, legal, medical and clinical psychologist academics following a historico-medico-legal appraisal of the ReSPECT process as situated in the current UK legal and cultural landscape. We review controversies and conundrums, and contextualise and contrast the current position to preparing for death and dying in the past.

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
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
3.50%
发文量
107
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Since 1809, the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (JRSM) has been a trusted source of information in the medical field. Our publication covers a wide range of topics, including evidence-based reviews, original research papers, commentaries, and personal perspectives. As an independent scientific and educational journal, we strive to foster constructive discussions on vital clinical matters. While we are based in the UK, our articles address issues that are globally relevant and of interest to healthcare professionals worldwide.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信