关于强制强制医疗和行为准则的思考

Stefano Ferracuti , Paolo Girardi , Massimo Di Giannantonio , Alberto Siracusano , Roberto Tatarelli
{"title":"关于强制强制医疗和行为准则的思考","authors":"Stefano Ferracuti ,&nbsp;Paolo Girardi ,&nbsp;Massimo Di Giannantonio ,&nbsp;Alberto Siracusano ,&nbsp;Roberto Tatarelli","doi":"10.1016/j.quip.2010.05.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>In psychiatry informed consent is an uttermost complex topic, especially when considering the 2006 Code of Medical Ethics/Medical Ethics Code (articles 33 and 35). Informed consent is the foundation of every possible therapeutic choice, although there are some notable exceptions, such as compulsory treatment for psychiatric reasons.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>The current mental health law system has been evaluated. It is noted that informed consent is not the central issue in the reasons for the involuntary admission. The problem of informed consent is subordinated to an ill-defined medical condition such as “psychic alterations that request an urgent intervention”. This ill defined condition leaves a wide array of difficulties open, when the psychiatrist has to propose the compulsory treatment.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We consider that the stratification of different laws about freedom/mental illness interface is not rationally harmonized with the centrality of informed consent in medicine.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>It would be appropriate to develop an evaluation of compulsory admission based on the centrality of informed consent (that is, the lack of informed consent). Consent can be viewed as an initial recovery of responsibility for the patient.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101052,"journal":{"name":"Quaderni Italiani di Psichiatria","volume":"29 2","pages":"Pages 66-72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.quip.2010.05.002","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Una riflessione sul trattamento sanitario obbligatorio coattivo e sul Codice deontologico\",\"authors\":\"Stefano Ferracuti ,&nbsp;Paolo Girardi ,&nbsp;Massimo Di Giannantonio ,&nbsp;Alberto Siracusano ,&nbsp;Roberto Tatarelli\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.quip.2010.05.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>In psychiatry informed consent is an uttermost complex topic, especially when considering the 2006 Code of Medical Ethics/Medical Ethics Code (articles 33 and 35). Informed consent is the foundation of every possible therapeutic choice, although there are some notable exceptions, such as compulsory treatment for psychiatric reasons.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>The current mental health law system has been evaluated. It is noted that informed consent is not the central issue in the reasons for the involuntary admission. The problem of informed consent is subordinated to an ill-defined medical condition such as “psychic alterations that request an urgent intervention”. This ill defined condition leaves a wide array of difficulties open, when the psychiatrist has to propose the compulsory treatment.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We consider that the stratification of different laws about freedom/mental illness interface is not rationally harmonized with the centrality of informed consent in medicine.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>It would be appropriate to develop an evaluation of compulsory admission based on the centrality of informed consent (that is, the lack of informed consent). Consent can be viewed as an initial recovery of responsibility for the patient.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quaderni Italiani di Psichiatria\",\"volume\":\"29 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 66-72\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.quip.2010.05.002\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quaderni Italiani di Psichiatria\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0393064510000150\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quaderni Italiani di Psichiatria","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0393064510000150","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

在精神病学中,知情同意是一个极其复杂的问题,特别是考虑到2006年《医学伦理守则》/《医学伦理守则》(第33条和第35条)。知情同意是每一种可能的治疗选择的基础,尽管有一些明显的例外,例如出于精神原因的强制治疗。材料与方法对我国现行精神卫生法律体系进行了评价。委员会指出,知情同意不是非自愿入院原因的中心问题。知情同意问题从属于一种定义不明确的医疗状况,如"需要紧急干预的精神变化"。当精神科医生不得不建议强制治疗时,这种不明确的情况留下了一系列的困难。结果我们认为,自由/精神疾病界面不同法律的分层与医学知情同意的中心地位没有合理协调。结论基于知情同意的中心性(即缺乏知情同意)对强制入院进行评估是合适的。同意可以被看作是对病人责任的初步恢复。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Una riflessione sul trattamento sanitario obbligatorio coattivo e sul Codice deontologico

Introduction

In psychiatry informed consent is an uttermost complex topic, especially when considering the 2006 Code of Medical Ethics/Medical Ethics Code (articles 33 and 35). Informed consent is the foundation of every possible therapeutic choice, although there are some notable exceptions, such as compulsory treatment for psychiatric reasons.

Materials and methods

The current mental health law system has been evaluated. It is noted that informed consent is not the central issue in the reasons for the involuntary admission. The problem of informed consent is subordinated to an ill-defined medical condition such as “psychic alterations that request an urgent intervention”. This ill defined condition leaves a wide array of difficulties open, when the psychiatrist has to propose the compulsory treatment.

Results

We consider that the stratification of different laws about freedom/mental illness interface is not rationally harmonized with the centrality of informed consent in medicine.

Conclusions

It would be appropriate to develop an evaluation of compulsory admission based on the centrality of informed consent (that is, the lack of informed consent). Consent can be viewed as an initial recovery of responsibility for the patient.

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