委托、强迫和选择

R. McCutcheon
{"title":"委托、强迫和选择","authors":"R. McCutcheon","doi":"10.1192/pb.37.5.179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The recent letter by Das[1][1] was a succinct and clear appraisal of much of the Schizophrenia Commission’s report. Das takes issue with the report’s point that ‘shared decision making on medication choices is essential’, commenting that this cannot refer to ‘the patient with chronic","PeriodicalId":89639,"journal":{"name":"The psychiatrist","volume":"68 1","pages":"179-179"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Commissions, coercion and choice\",\"authors\":\"R. McCutcheon\",\"doi\":\"10.1192/pb.37.5.179\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The recent letter by Das[1][1] was a succinct and clear appraisal of much of the Schizophrenia Commission’s report. Das takes issue with the report’s point that ‘shared decision making on medication choices is essential’, commenting that this cannot refer to ‘the patient with chronic\",\"PeriodicalId\":89639,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The psychiatrist\",\"volume\":\"68 1\",\"pages\":\"179-179\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The psychiatrist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.37.5.179\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The psychiatrist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.37.5.179","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

Das[1][1]最近的信对精神分裂症委员会报告的大部分内容进行了简洁而明确的评价。达斯对报告中“药物选择的共同决策至关重要”的观点提出了质疑,他评论说,这不能指“慢性疾病患者”
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Commissions, coercion and choice
The recent letter by Das[1][1] was a succinct and clear appraisal of much of the Schizophrenia Commission’s report. Das takes issue with the report’s point that ‘shared decision making on medication choices is essential’, commenting that this cannot refer to ‘the patient with chronic
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