Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 15 de 15
Filter
4.
Psychiatr Pol ; 55(3): 585-598, 2021 Jun 30.
Article in English, Polish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1395317

ABSTRACT

Within the scope of mental health protection, numerous practical problems arise concerning the issue of providing health services to a minor. Admission of a minor to a psychiatric hospital is associated in practice with numerous doubts. This part of the article describes the conditions of admission to hospital with the consent of the patient. It distinguishes and accurately describes situations where a minor is under or over 16 years of age. In addition, it explains situations where there is a contradiction of declarations of will by legal guardians in relation to admission, their inability to perform legal acts, or a contradiction of the statements of the minor and guardian. It also addresses the aspect of receiving written consent during the COVID-19 epidemic.


Subject(s)
Commitment of Mentally Ill/legislation & jurisprudence , Informed Consent/legislation & jurisprudence , Legal Guardians/legislation & jurisprudence , Minors/legislation & jurisprudence , Patient Admission/legislation & jurisprudence , Adolescent , COVID-19/epidemiology , Hospitals, Psychiatric/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Mental Disorders/therapy , Poland
5.
Actas Dermosifiliogr (Engl Ed) ; 112(2): 127-133, 2021 Feb.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1384814

ABSTRACT

Teledermatology is now fully incorporated into our clinical practice. However, after reviewing current legislation on the ethical aspects of teledermatology (data confidentiality, quality of care, patient autonomy, and privacy) as well as insurance and professional responsibility, we observed that a specific regulatory framework is still lacking and related legal aspects are still at a preliminary stage of development. Safeguarding confidentiality and patient autonomy and ensuring secure storage and transfer of data are essential aspects of telemedicine. One of the main topics of debate has been the responsibilities of the physicians involved in the process, with the concept of designating a single responsible clinician emerging as a determining factor in the allocation of responsibility in this setting. A specific legal and regulatory framework must be put in place to ensure the safe practice of teledermatology for medical professionals and their patients.


Subject(s)
Confidentiality , Dermatology , Telemedicine , COVID-19/epidemiology , Computer Security/ethics , Computer Security/legislation & jurisprudence , Confidentiality/ethics , Confidentiality/legislation & jurisprudence , Dermatology/ethics , Dermatology/legislation & jurisprudence , Emergencies , European Union , Humans , Informed Consent/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance, Liability/legislation & jurisprudence , Pandemics , Personal Autonomy , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain , Telemedicine/ethics , Telemedicine/legislation & jurisprudence
6.
J Postgrad Med ; 67(3): 134-138, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1367979

ABSTRACT

Objectives: We evaluated the extent of consent declines and consent withdrawals during the COVID-19 pandemic as seen in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and compared it with non-COVID-19 RCTs published at the same time and two historical controls. Methods: PubMed/Medline only was searched using key-word "COVID-19" and "RCTs" separately, and filtered for COVID-19 RCTs and non-COVID-19 RCTs respectively, published during a nine-month period (1 Feb - 1 Nov 2020). Exclusions were study protocols, observational studies, interim analysis of RCT data and RCTs with missing data. Primary outcome measures were the proportion of consent declines and consent withdrawals as percentage of total participants screened and randomized respectively in COVID-19 RCTs. We compared consent declines and consent withdrawals of COVID-19 RCTs with non-COVID-19 RCTs and two earlier studies on the same topic that served as historical controls (non-pandemic setting). Results: The search yielded a total of 111 COVID-19 RCTs and 49 non-COVID-19 RCTs. Of these, 39 (35.13%) COVID-19 RCTs and 11 (22.45%) non-COVID-19 RCTs were finally analysed. A total of 770/17759 (4.3%) consent declines and 100/7607 (1.31%) consent withdrawals were seen in 39 COVID-19 RCTs. A significant difference was observed in consent declines between COVID-19 vs non-COVID-19 RCTs [4.3% vs 11.9%, p < 0.0001] and between COVID-19 RCTs vs two historical controls [(4.3% vs 8.6%, p < 0.0001) and (4.3% vs 21.1%, p < 0.0001), respectively]. Conclusion: RCTs conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic appear to have significantly lower consent declines relative to non-COVID-19 RCTs during pandemic and RCTs conducted in non-pandemic settings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Informed Consent , Patient Selection/ethics , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/therapy , Ethics, Research , Humans , Informed Consent/ethics , Informed Consent/legislation & jurisprudence , Informed Consent/standards , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/ethics , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Med Leg J ; 89(2): 102-105, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1127647

ABSTRACT

Recent reports suggest that the use of an outpatient-based procedure (pneumatic retinopexy, PR) for retinal detachment repair should be encouraged within the UK, especially in light of Covid-19 and possible restrictions/competing demands on access to operating theatres. It is therefore essential that patients receive comprehensive information about the risks and benefits of this approach compared with a formal surgical repair either by pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and/or scleral buckling (SB). We report a retrospective case series of retinal detachments (RD) satisfying the strict selection criteria for PR but who were managed with formal surgery. Single-operation success rate for PPV/SB at six months follow-up was 93.8% in our study, higher than published primary success rates for PR (60-80%). When counselling patients for possible PR, the ease, speed and potentially reduced co-morbidity of an outpatient-based procedure needs to be balanced against its significantly higher failure rate in comparison with primary PPV/SB.


Subject(s)
Informed Consent/standards , Retina/surgery , Retinal Detachment/surgery , Scleral Buckling/standards , Vitrectomy/standards , Aged , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Female , Humans , Informed Consent/legislation & jurisprudence , Male , Middle Aged , Retina/physiopathology , Retrospective Studies , Scleral Buckling/statistics & numerical data , Vitrectomy/statistics & numerical data
11.
Recenti Prog Med ; 112(1): 13-14, 2021 01.
Article in Italian | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1054908

ABSTRACT

Informed consent for CoViD-19 vaccines can be considered a step that can help us focus on an increasingly burdensome problem for contemporary medicine: the difficult relationship of trust between citizens and academic medicine. Filling out forms full of useless information cannot replace the rebuilding of trust based on shared essential ethical principles. Trust needs to be protected by a transparent accountability, which can also decrease the threatening looming of lawsuits. Medicine must be safe, first and foremost, for the practitioner. He cannot practice it if he feels constantly in check, if the outcome of the treatment does not correspond to the wishes of those who request it.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , Informed Consent/psychology , Physician-Patient Relations , Trust , Vaccination Refusal/psychology , Attitude to Health , France , Humans , Informed Consent/legislation & jurisprudence , Italy , Liability, Legal , Public Opinion , Vaccination Refusal/legislation & jurisprudence
12.
Chiropr Man Therap ; 28(1): 60, 2020 11 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-930563

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has seen the emergence of unsubstantiated claims by vertebral subluxation-based chiropractors that spinal manipulative therapy has a role to play in prevention by enhancing the body's immune function. We contend that these claims are unprofessional and demonstrate a disturbing lack of insight into the doctrine of informed consent. As such it is timely to review how informed consent has evolved and continues to do so and also to discuss the attendant implications for contemporary health practitioner practice. We review the origins of informed consent and trace the duty of disclosure and materiality through landmark medical consent cases in four common law (case law) jurisdictions. The duty of disclosure has evolved from a patriarchal exercise to one in which patient autonomy in clinical decision making is paramount. Passing time has seen the duty of disclosure evolve to include non-medical aspects that may influence the delivery of care. We argue that a patient cannot provide valid informed consent for the removal of vertebral subluxation. Further, vertebral subluxation care cannot meet code of conduct standards because it lacks an evidence base and is practitioner-centered. The uptake of the expanded duty of disclosure has been slow and incomplete by practitioners and regulators. The expanded duty of disclosure has implications, both educative and punitive for regulators, chiropractic educators and professional associations. We discuss how practitioners and regulators can be informed by other sources such as consumer law. For regulators, reviewing and updating informed consent requirements is required. For practitioners it may necessitate disclosure of health status, conflict of interest when recommending "inhouse" products, recency of training after attending continuing professional development, practice patterns, personal interests and disciplinary findings. CONCLUSION: Ultimately such matters are informed by the deliberations of the courts. It is our opinion that the duty of a mature profession to critically self-evaluate and respond in the best interests of the patient before these matters arrive in court.


Subject(s)
Chiropractic/legislation & jurisprudence , Disclosure/legislation & jurisprudence , Informed Consent/legislation & jurisprudence , Pandemics/legislation & jurisprudence , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections , Humans , Pneumonia, Viral , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Nurs Older People ; 33(2): 26-31, 2021 Mar 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-884027

ABSTRACT

Research is important because it underpins evidence-based care. However, people who lack capacity to consent are often excluded from research, due partly to ethical concerns and practical challenges, and partly to a lack of awareness among professionals of the legal framework that supports their inclusion. The COVID-19 pandemic, which has extensively affected care home residents, has reinforced the importance of including older people with cognitive impairment in research. Nurses who care for older people with impaired cognition have an important role in ensuring these people have the opportunity to contribute to and benefit from research. This article discusses some of the challenges associated with the inclusion in research of older people who lack capacity to consent, including the involvement of relatives and friends in decision-making. The article describes the findings of recent research and shares resources with the aim of supporting nurses to ensure that older people in their care who lack capacity can participate in research.


Subject(s)
Informed Consent/legislation & jurisprudence , Mental Competency/legislation & jurisprudence , Nurse-Patient Relations , Research Subjects/psychology , Research/organization & administration , Aged , COVID-19 , Humans , Research Subjects/statistics & numerical data , United Kingdom/epidemiology
15.
Med Sci (Paris) ; 36(4): 303-307, 2020 Apr.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-811536

ABSTRACT

TITLE: L'éthique des essais thérapeutiques. ABSTRACT: La pandémie de COVID-19 a conduit certains acteurs reconnus de la médecine à renoncer aux méthodes codifiées de la recherche médicale au profit d'affirmations établies dans l'urgence et sans réelle évaluation scientifique. Autant l'on peut comprendre que certains praticiens recourent à ce qui leur est ainsi proposé, autant cette confusion entre action dans l'urgence et recherche scientifique serait lourde de conséquences si elle venait à se généraliser, et cela à de multiples points de vue : image et rôle de la science, qualité et éthique de la recherche médicale et en fin de compte sort des malades soumis à des traitements mal évalués. Ce sont ces questions qui motivent la mise au point qui suit sur les questions d'éthique associées de longue date aux « essais thérapeutiques ¼, cette procédure rationnelle d'acquisition dans les meilleurs délais d'informations fiables sur les avantages et les risques des traitements dont on envisage l'éventuelle utilisation.


Subject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic/ethics , Ethics, Medical , COVID-19 , Clinical Trials as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Emergency Medical Services/ethics , Emergency Medical Services/history , Emergency Medical Services/legislation & jurisprudence , Emergency Medical Services/methods , History, 21st Century , Humans , Informed Consent/ethics , Informed Consent/legislation & jurisprudence , Informed Consent/standards , Knowledge , Legislation, Medical , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Quality Improvement , Quality of Health Care/ethics , Quality of Health Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Research Design/legislation & jurisprudence , Research Design/standards , Therapies, Investigational/ethics , Therapies, Investigational/standards
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL