[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]。

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Medycyna pracy Pub Date : 2021-12-22 Epub Date: 2021-11-08 DOI:10.13075/mp.5893.01186
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,&nbsp;Romuald Krajewski,&nbsp;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,&nbsp;Romuald Krajewski,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:随着波兰出现与COVID-19疫情有关的特殊情况,公开辩论中又出现了一个问题,即在违反职业健康和安全的条件下,缺乏个人防护装备的医务人员是否有权不从事工作。国家劳工检查员明确指出,不工作不适用于其职责是拯救生命或财产的雇员。这篇文章的目的是分析艺术的前提。将《劳动法》第210条纳入医疗法和职业道德范畴,并鼓励对这一棘手问题进行研究。材料和方法:采用分析现行劳动法和医疗法规定的方法。分析了最高法院的判例和该学说的观点。结果:医生和护士的员工职责始终是“抢救”义务和“在此义务范围内”的义务,医务人员与“所有员工”不同,没有相关的克制权。《行医规则》规定了例外情况,即在没有紧急情况的情况下,医生因重要原因不接受或不接受病人的治疗。结论:因此,起点是区分具有一般法律性质的《劳动法》条款和作为特殊法律规定的《医生和牙医职业法》条款。受雇的医生不能同意在使病人受到伤害的条件下执业。作为雇员的医生通过转介而不工作是有限制的。医学进展与展望;2011;32(6):661-9。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[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.

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
Medycyna pracy
Medycyna pracy PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
10.00%
发文量
35
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
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