Dorota Karkowska, Romuald Krajewski, Tomasz Adam Karkowski
{"title":"[提供医疗援助的义务,以及雇员有权避免在不符合职业卫生安全法规和缺乏个人防护装备的条件下工作——COVID-19疫情期间的困境]。","authors":"Dorota Karkowska, Romuald Krajewski, Tomasz Adam Karkowski","doi":"10.13075/mp.5893.01186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With the emergence of an extraordinary situation in Poland related to the state of the COVID-19 epidemic, the question returned in the public debate whether in conditions that violate occupational health and safety, lack personal protective equipment the medical staff has the right to refrain from performing work. The National Labor Inspector clearly indicated that refraining from work does not apply to an employee whose employee's duty is to save lives or property. The aim of the article is to analyze the premises of art. 210 of the Labor Code in the context of medical law and professional ethics and to provide the doctrine with an incentive to research on the difficult issue.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>It uses the method of analyzing the current provisions of labor law and medical law. The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the views of the doctrine were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The employee duty of a doctor and a nurse is always the obligation to \"rescue\" and \"within\" this obligation, medical personnel, unlike \"all employees,\" do not have the relevant right to refrain. In the context of the rules of practicing the medical profession providing for an exception, i.e., the doctor's failure to take or withdraw from treatment of a patient for important reasons, in a situation where there is no urgent case.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The starting point is, therefore, the distinction between the provisions of the Labor Code of a general character legis generalis and the provisions of the Act on the profession of doctor and dentist as specific provisions legis specialis. An employed doctor cannot agree to practice in conditions that expose patients to harm. Refraining from work by a doctor as an employee by referring is subject to limitations. Med Pr. 2021;72(6):661-9.</p>","PeriodicalId":18749,"journal":{"name":"Medycyna pracy","volume":"72 6","pages":"661-669"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[The obligation to provide medical assistance, and the employee's right to refrain from performing work in conditions not complying with occupational health and safety regulations and lacking personal protective equipment - dilemmas during the COVID-19 epidemic].\",\"authors\":\"Dorota Karkowska, Romuald Krajewski, Tomasz Adam Karkowski\",\"doi\":\"10.13075/mp.5893.01186\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With the emergence of an extraordinary situation in Poland related to the state of the COVID-19 epidemic, the question returned in the public debate whether in conditions that violate occupational health and safety, lack personal protective equipment the medical staff has the right to refrain from performing work. The National Labor Inspector clearly indicated that refraining from work does not apply to an employee whose employee's duty is to save lives or property. The aim of the article is to analyze the premises of art. 210 of the Labor Code in the context of medical law and professional ethics and to provide the doctrine with an incentive to research on the difficult issue.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>It uses the method of analyzing the current provisions of labor law and medical law. The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the views of the doctrine were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The employee duty of a doctor and a nurse is always the obligation to \\\"rescue\\\" and \\\"within\\\" this obligation, medical personnel, unlike \\\"all employees,\\\" do not have the relevant right to refrain. In the context of the rules of practicing the medical profession providing for an exception, i.e., the doctor's failure to take or withdraw from treatment of a patient for important reasons, in a situation where there is no urgent case.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The starting point is, therefore, the distinction between the provisions of the Labor Code of a general character legis generalis and the provisions of the Act on the profession of doctor and dentist as specific provisions legis specialis. An employed doctor cannot agree to practice in conditions that expose patients to harm. Refraining from work by a doctor as an employee by referring is subject to limitations. Med Pr. 2021;72(6):661-9.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18749,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medycyna pracy\",\"volume\":\"72 6\",\"pages\":\"661-669\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medycyna pracy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13075/mp.5893.01186\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/11/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medycyna pracy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13075/mp.5893.01186","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
[The obligation to provide medical assistance, and the employee's right to refrain from performing work in conditions not complying with occupational health and safety regulations and lacking personal protective equipment - dilemmas during the COVID-19 epidemic].
Background: With the emergence of an extraordinary situation in Poland related to the state of the COVID-19 epidemic, the question returned in the public debate whether in conditions that violate occupational health and safety, lack personal protective equipment the medical staff has the right to refrain from performing work. The National Labor Inspector clearly indicated that refraining from work does not apply to an employee whose employee's duty is to save lives or property. The aim of the article is to analyze the premises of art. 210 of the Labor Code in the context of medical law and professional ethics and to provide the doctrine with an incentive to research on the difficult issue.
Material and methods: It uses the method of analyzing the current provisions of labor law and medical law. The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the views of the doctrine were analyzed.
Results: The employee duty of a doctor and a nurse is always the obligation to "rescue" and "within" this obligation, medical personnel, unlike "all employees," do not have the relevant right to refrain. In the context of the rules of practicing the medical profession providing for an exception, i.e., the doctor's failure to take or withdraw from treatment of a patient for important reasons, in a situation where there is no urgent case.
Conclusions: The starting point is, therefore, the distinction between the provisions of the Labor Code of a general character legis generalis and the provisions of the Act on the profession of doctor and dentist as specific provisions legis specialis. An employed doctor cannot agree to practice in conditions that expose patients to harm. Refraining from work by a doctor as an employee by referring is subject to limitations. Med Pr. 2021;72(6):661-9.
期刊介绍:
The journal publishes original papers, review papers and case studies in Polish and English. The subject matter of the articles includes occupational pathology, physical, chemical and biological agents at workplace, toxicology, mutagenesis, health policy, health management, health care, epidemiology, etc.
The magazine also includes reports from national and international scientific conferences on occupational medicine. It also contains letters to the editor. Each first-in-year issue of the magazine comprises former-year indices of authors and keywords.