Encontro com Especialistas - Cuidado Seguro de RN e crianças

Encontro com as Especialistas Roseli Calil, médica neonatologista da Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp); Eduarda Ribeiro dos Santos, enfermeira e advogada, docente na Faculdade Israelita Albert Einstein; Aline Hennemann, enfermeira especialista na área materno infantil, assessora da CACRIAD/DGCI/SAPS/MS; e Zeni Lamy, médica neonatologista da Universidade Federal do Maranhão (UFMA).

Cruzan after Dobbs: What Remains of the Constitutional Right to Refuse Treatment?

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court removed constitutional protection from the individual's right to end a pregnancy. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Court invalidated previous rulings protecting that right as part of the individual liberty and privacy interests embedded in the U.S. Constitution. Now, many observers are speculating about the fate of other rights founded on those interests. The Dobbs ruling conflicts with the Court's 1990 Cruzan decision restricting the government's power to interfere with personal medical choices. The language and reasoning in Dobbs and Cruzan offer guidance on how the Court might address future cases involving the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment. The decisions also point to policy strategies for preserving that right.

The "Right" to refuse treatment.

The "right" of an adult patient with capacity to refuse treatment has been very well recognized by the courts over the years. Recently, it was the central issue in this recent case, PH (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board ([2022] EWCOP 16). This paper briefly reviews the case and goes on to present the author's views on the general "right" to refuse treatment and the meaning of "right" in the expression, "the right to refuse treatment". It then points out other relevant matters worth noting.

Aspectos bioéticos y legales del secreto profesional en odontología / Bioethical and legal aspects of the professional secret in dentistry

Deontology and bioethics regulate the professional actions of doctors and dentists from a human and moral point of view. The dentist collects private information from each of his patients during the interrogation or clinical examination, and it is the dentist's obligation to keep silent about everything he sees or hears during the dental practice about the private life of his patients. The disclosure of secrets without the full authorization of the patient could undoubtedly affect their person, honor and reputation. In addition, the dentist has another type of private information about patients, known as personal data, which must be handled with great care and discretion. Professional secrecy is an ethical obligation of every dentist and its omission may bring legal repercussions. The aim of this article is to analyze the concept of professional secrecy, its ethical, deontological and legal aspects in dental practice (AU)

La deontología y bioética norman el actuar profesional de los médicos y odontólogos desde el punto de vista humano y moral. El odontólogo recaba información privada de cada uno de sus pacientes durante el interrogatorio o la exploración clínica, y es obligación del odontólogo guardar silencio de todo aquello que ve o escucha durante la consulta sobre la vida privada de sus pacientes. La revelación de secretos sin la plena autorización del paciente, podría generar sin duda afectaciones a su persona, honorabilidad y reputación. Además, el odontólogo posee otro tipo de información privada sobre los pacientes, conocida como datos personales, mismos que debe manejar con mucha cautela y discre- ción. El secreto profesional es una obligación ética de todo odontólogo y su omisión puede traer consigo repercusiones legales. El objetivo de este artículo consiste en analizar el concepto de secreto profesional, sus aspectos deontológicos, bioéticos y legales en la práctica odontológica (AU)

La seguridad social: Un derecho y una obligación para el odontólogo y sus trabajadores / Social security: A right and obligation for the dentist and his workers

La seguridad social es un derecho encaminado a asegurar el bienestar de los ciudadanos que forman parte de una comunidad, y su objetivo principal es brindar a las personas aseguradas un conjunto de medidas públicas que ayuden a la protección de su salud por accidentes de trabajo o enfermedad laboral, desempleo, invalidez, vejez o muerte. De acuerdo con nuestra legislación, toda persona que preste servicios laborales a otro, tiene derecho a ser registrado ante el seguro social para que, en caso de accidente o enfermedad laboral, exista una ins- tancia que asista al trabajador afectado a recuperar su salud sin afectar su economía familiar. Es bastante frecuente que el odontólogo tenga trabajadores a su cargo, quien al fungir como patrón tiene obligaciones específicas ante el Instituto de Seguridad Social que de no cumplir, puede traer consigo sanciones y amonestaciones al profesional. El objetivo del presente artículo es informar al odontólogo sus derechos y obligaciones ante el seguro social mediante una revisión de las normas y leyes que lo imponen (AU)

Social security is a right aimed at ensuring the well-being of citizens who are part of community, and its main objective is to provide insured persons with a set of public measures that help protect their health, due to accidents at work and occupational disease, unemployment, disability, old age or death. In accordance with our legislation, any person who provides labor services to another has the right to registered with the social security so that, in the event of an accident or occupational disease, there is an instance that assists the affecter worker to recover his health without affecting his familiar economy. It is quite common for the dentist to have workers under his charge, who, acting as an employer, have specific obligations with the Social Security Institute, which, if not fulfilled, can bring sanctions and reprimands to the professional. The aim of this article is to inform dentists about their rights and obligations with the Social Security Institute through a review of the laws that impose it (AU)

Uninformed consent: Who knows what Ivan Ilyich would have thought?

ABSTRACT: In the modern era, when prolonging life is not an option, the end-of-life discussions are unavoidably influenced by Neuroethics. Despite this, it is interestingly evident how the sentiments of a terminal patient of 1885 and a physician of 2020, are still comparable. This paper pre-sents the arguments behind the so-called "Therapeutic Misconception" and the aim of palliative care to provide dying patients support. It is essential to address priorities of informed consent, signed before any remedy is provided. A key component of the newest Neuroscience research is the analysis of motivation and free will. So, it is necessary to comprehend if the patient struggles to feel at peace with these aspects of his "right to die": Is he free to choose or is he influenced by the doctors? Is this confusion an example of "Therapeutic Misconception"? Is his Informed Consent totally "Informed"? In order to broaden our understanding, we account for many critical situations, such as the mentally impaired Psychiatric patients or the famous Italian case of Eluana Englaro. In addition, we suggested some current approaches such as Artificial Intelligence, useful in preserving some cognitive functions the patient may have lost. Furthermore, research in this field is very critical and in some Catholic countries like Italy, people faced difficulties accepting the idea of the "Anticipated directives". In general, whatever the mental status and whatever the terminal state, the patients seem still far from handling their own auto-determination and their Consent, even if the ultimate goal is to die with dignity.

How the convention on human rights affects a patient's right to life.

Richard Griffith, Senior Lecturer in Health Law at Swansea University, continues his series on human rights and health care and considers the right to life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950).

A qualitative study of clinicians' perspectives on independent rights advice for involuntary psychiatric patients in British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: In British Columbia (BC), Canada, clinicians are responsible for giving involuntary psychiatric patients rights information upon admission. Yet an investigation by the BC Office of the Ombudsperson found that clinicians are not always fulfilling this responsibility. The Ombudsperson recommended that the provincial government fund an independent body to give rights advice to patients. METHODS: To understand how clinicians feel about this recommendation, focus groups of clinicians who may give psychiatric patients rights information (n = 81) were conducted in Vancouver, BC, to probe their attitudes toward independent rights advisors. The focus group transcripts were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Most clinicians believe that giving rights information is within their scope of practice, although some acknowledge that it poses a conflict of interest when the patient wishes to challenge the treatment team's decisions. Participants' chief concerns about an independent rights-advice service were that (a) patients may experience a delay in receiving their rights information, (b) integrating rights advisors into the workflow would complicate an already chaotic admission process, and (c) more patients would be counselled to challenge their hospitalization, leading to an increased administrative workload for clinical staff. However, many participants believed that independent rights advisors would be a positive addition to the admission process, both allowing clinicians to focus on treatment and serving as a source of rights-related information. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were generally amenable to an independent rights-advice service, suggesting that the introduction of rights advisors need not result in an adversarial relationship between treatment team and patient, as opponents of the proposal fear. Clearly distinguishing between basic rights information and in-depth rights advice could address several of the clinicians' concerns about the role that independent rights advisors would play in the involuntary admission process. Clinicians' and other stakeholders' concerns should be considered as the province develops its rights-advice service.

Networked Health Care Governance in the European Union.

The European Union (EU) increasingly resorts to new forms of governance to establish unified health and welfare policies without member states having to transfer their sovereignty to a supranational level. European Administrative Networks are important instruments in the toolbox of new forms of governance, dealing with rulemaking, rule monitoring, and rule enforcement. Operating beyond, but not above, the state, European networks of national administrative units allow for interaction and exchange to coordinate national responses to increased interaction across their borders. The authors use social network analysis to uncover the pattern of interaction among national representatives in two central EU health care networks. Their analysis finds not only that the network in the area of pharmacovigilance has more competences, resources, and capacity to improve the enforcement of EU rules than the network regarding cross-border health care but also that the driving forces behind network interaction appear to differ quite a bit as well. While the supranational character becomes apparent in the former network, network interactions in the latter seem aimed at mitigating the impact of patient mobility rather than improving cross-border health care take up.

Emergency contraception: unresolved clinical, ethical and legal quandaries still linger.

Emergency contraception (EC) has been prescribed for decades, in order to lessen the risk of unplanned and unwanted pregnancy following unprotected intercourse, ordinary contraceptive failure, or rape. EC and the linked aspect of unintended pregnancy undoubtedly constitute highly relevant public health issues, in that they involve women's self-determination, reproductive freedom and family planning. Most European countries regulate EC access quite effectively, with solid information campaigns and supply mechanisms, based on various recommendations from international institutions herein examined. However, there is still disagreement on whether EC drugs should be available without a physician's prescription and on the reimbursement policies that should be implemented. In addition, the rights of health care professionals who object to EC on conscience grounds have been subject to considerable legal and ethical scrutiny, in light of their potential to damage patients who need EC drugs in a timely fashion. Ultimately, reproductive health, freedom and conscience-based refusal on the part of operators are elements that have proven extremely hard to reconcile; hence, it is essential to strike a reasonable balance for the sake of everyone's rights and well-being.

Experiences of involuntary psychiatric admission decision-making: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of the perspectives of service users, informal carers, and professionals.

BACKGROUND: In involuntary psychiatric admission, used globally, professionals or caretakers decide upon hospitalization regardless of what the person with psychosocial disabilities decides. This raises clinical, ethical, legal, and human rights concerns, and it goes against Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). CRPD mandates that member states respect the autonomy of people with disabilities. Through Article 12, it recognizes full enjoyment of legal capacity for persons with disabilities. Implementation of Article 12 is challenging in every country, and exploring all the stakeholders' experiences at admission decision-making will help us to understand the challenges that the current psychiatry system poses for service users to exercise their autonomy and identify the areas where service users need support to have their rights, will, and preferences respected. AIM: To describe the experiences of service users, informal carers, and professionals in involuntary psychiatric admission decision-making and throughout the subsequent involuntary admission. We explored the support that the service users need to have their rights, will, and preferences respected. METHOD: A search of twelve databases in medicine, sociology, and law in Danish, English, Japanese, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Swedish was conducted in 2017 and 2018, limited to the past 10 years, using terms such as "involuntary," "admission," "mental illness," and "experience". The search identified 682 articles. Four researchers independently reviewed the articles to find those that completed original qualitative or mixed method studies exploring experiences of involuntary psychiatric admission among adults. We added seven publications from the articles' references, contacted experts in the field (no publications were added), and excluded two articles that were in German. Three researchers analyzed the articles' results using Thematic Analysis (PROSPERO registration number CRD42019072874). RESULTS: Overall, 37 articles were included from 11 countries; they involved 731 service users, 100 informal carers, and 291 mental health professionals. We identified a lack of communication and a power imbalance among the stakeholders, which was exacerbated by the professionals' attitudes. At admission decision-making, the service users wanted to be heard and wanted to understand the situation. The families felt responsibility for the service users, they were careful not to ruin relationships, and they struggled to obtain support from the mental health system. Professionals believed that threats or harming others should lead to admission regardless of what the service users or their families felt. Professionals sometimes felt that it was not necessary to explain the information to the service users because they would not understand. Professionals were concerned and frustrated with difficulties in coordinating among themselves. During admission, service users struggled with the ward environment and relationship with staff; they most objected to coercion, such as forced medication. Families were frustrated that they were not involved in the treatment planning, especially as the service users moved toward discharge. The professionals often rationalized that coercion was necessary, and they believed that they knew what was best for the service users. CONCLUSIONS: A lack of communication and a power imbalance among the stakeholders hindered respect for the service users' rights, will, and preferences. This was exacerbated by professionals rationalizing coercion and assuming that service users were incapable of understanding information. Services that encourage communication and overcome power imbalances (e.g. Crisis Plans, Family Group Conferencing) combined with stronger community mental health support will respect service users' rights, will, and preferences and avoid substituted decision-making on issues such as involuntary admission and forced medication.

Measuring the impact of revised mental health legislation on human rights in Queensland, Australia.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) (CRPD) has been instrumental for initiating and shaping the reform of mental health legislation in many countries, including the eight Australian jurisdictions. Multiple approaches have been proposed to assess and monitor the compliance of States Parties' mental health legislation with the CRPD, and to evaluate its success in protecting and promoting the human rights of people with disabilities. This article reports an effort to index the impact of legislation on human rights by measuring changes in the prevalence of compulsory treatment orders applied to people with mental illness after the introduction of CRPD influenced mental health legislation in the Australian state of Queensland. We found that despite reforms intended to enhance patient autonomy, the prevalence of compulsory treatment orders increased after implementation of the new legislation. Possible reasons behind this unintended consequence of the legislative reform may include a lack of systematized voluntary alternatives to compulsory treatment, a paternalistic and restrictive culture in mental health services and risk aversion in clinicians and society. We recommend that the reforms in mental health policy as well as legislation need to go further in order to achieve the goals embodied in the human rights framework of the CRPD.

[Non-compulsory outpatient care programmes: two clinical illustrations]. / Programmes de soins ambulatoires sans consentement : deux illustrations cliniques.

The act of 5 July 2011 pertaining to the rights and the protection of persons under psychiatric care presents the possibility for compulsory care, without the need for full hospitalisation. Patients can be cared for through partial hospitalisation (day hospital and part-time therapeutic clinic) or in a medical-psychological centre. Treatments and all care are detailed in a care programme. This programme is sent, like all certificates, to the regional health agency and the prefecture in the case of psychiatric care by decision of the State representative, or to the hospital director for psychiatric care at the request of a third party. We propose two clinical vignettes.