Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Int J Law Psychiatry ; 71: 101572, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32768110

ABSTRACT

Psychiatric inpatients are particularly vulnerable to the transmission and effects of COVID-19. As such, healthcare providers should implement measures to prevent its spread within mental health units, including adequate testing, cohorting, and in some cases, the isolation of patients. Respiratory isolation imposes a significant limitation on an individual's right to liberty, and should be accompanied by appropriate legal safeguards. This paper explores the implications of respiratory isolation in English law, considering the applicability of the common law doctrine of necessity, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Mental Health Act 1983, and public health legislation. We then interrogate the practicality of currently available approaches by applying them to a series of hypothetical cases. There are currently no 'neat' or practicable solutions to the problem of lawfully isolating patients on mental health units, and we discuss the myriad issues with both mental health and public health law approaches to the problem. We conclude by making some suggestions to policymakers.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Hospitals, Psychiatric/ethics , Hospitals, Psychiatric/legislation & jurisprudence , Infection Control/legislation & jurisprudence , Mental Competency/legislation & jurisprudence , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Isolation/ethics , Patient Isolation/legislation & jurisprudence , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , England/epidemiology , Humans , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Wales/epidemiology
6.
J Med Ethics ; 36(11): 708-11, 2010 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20675740

ABSTRACT

Ancillary care is care that research participants need that is not essential to make the research safe or scientifically valid and is not needed to remedy injuries that eventuate as a result of the research project itself. Ancillary care duties have recently been defended on the grounds of beneficence, entrustment, utility and consent. Justice has also been mentioned as a possible basis of ancillary care duties, but little attention has been paid to this approach. In this paper, the author seeks to rectify this omission by arguing that ancillary care duties can be based on a principle of justice as rectification.


Subject(s)
Ancillary Services, Hospital/legislation & jurisprudence , Biomedical Research , Ethics, Research , Ancillary Services, Hospital/ethics , Humans , Moral Obligations
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...