Grounds for admitting a mentally ill person without their consent to a psychiatric hospital under the application procedure. / Przeslanki przyjecia osoby chorej psychicznie bez jej zgody do szpitala psychiatrycznego w trybie wnioskowym.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article is to present the authors´ comments on the analysis of the conditions for admitting a person to a psychiatric hospital against their will on the basis of a judgment issued by a guardianship court as part of proceedings initiated at the request of an authorized entity, and the assumptions contained therein are based on applicable normative acts. METHODS: The method of analyzing the current provisions of medical law was used, and of the social security law were also referred to. The judicature of the courts, in particular the Supreme Court, was collected, presented and considered, which constitute a practical guide in assessing whether or not the conditions for admitting a patient to a psychiatric hospital without their consent have been met. RESULTS: Placing a mentally ill person in a psychiatric hospital without their consent, in a situation where the person does not pose a direct threat to their health and life, or to the health and life of third parties, and does not pose a threat to public safety, is quite a specific restriction of the human right to freedom, sanctioned by the state. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of Article 29 (1) of the Mental Health Act is a special provision, it should be interpreted strictly, without referring to the principles of broad interpretation or analogy, and the supreme directive of the courts' actions should be the requirement that the ruling should be purposeful from the point of view of the good and interest of the person concerned.

Supporting elderly patients in strengthening their personal and spiritual health resources.

Care for the sick, including spiritual support is sometimes called holistic medicine. The term bio-psycho-social-spiritual model is sometimes used to describe this type of therapeutic approach patient-oriented medicine. This report indicates the importance of taking into account the spiritual aspect of life due to its beneficial impact on the coping resources activated and the patient's well-being. Existential and spiritual issues are on the verge of new clinical and research interest in medicine, especially in gerontology, oncology, and palliative care. Clinicians focus not only on symptom control but also on spiritual and existential issues such as spirituality, hope, and meaning. This paper reviews the topic of spirituality in the context of illness and end-of-life care trying to define spirituality within the context of health resources of the subject. Spirituality is perceived in two of its main components: faith/religious beliefs and spiritual well-being. Especially this second construct is reviewed and described as a health resource.

[The obligation to provide medical assistance, and the employee's right to refrain from performing work in conditions not complying with occupational health and safety regulations and lacking personal protective equipment - dilemmas during the COVID-19 epidemic]. / Obowiazek udzielenia pomocy lekarskiej a prawo pracownika do powstrzymania sie od wykonywania pracy w warunkach nieodpowiadajacych przepisom bezpieczenstwa i higieny pracy oraz braku srodków ochrony osobistej ­ dylematy w trakcie pandemii COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: With the emergence of an extraordinary situation in Poland related to the state of the COVID-19 epidemic, the question returned in the public debate whether in conditions that violate occupational health and safety, lack personal protective equipment the medical staff has the right to refrain from performing work. The National Labor Inspector clearly indicated that refraining from work does not apply to an employee whose employee's duty is to save lives or property. The aim of the article is to analyze the premises of art. 210 of the Labor Code in the context of medical law and professional ethics and to provide the doctrine with an incentive to research on the difficult issue. MATERIAL AND METHODS: It uses the method of analyzing the current provisions of labor law and medical law. The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the views of the doctrine were analyzed. RESULTS: The employee duty of a doctor and a nurse is always the obligation to "rescue" and "within" this obligation, medical personnel, unlike "all employees," do not have the relevant right to refrain. In the context of the rules of practicing the medical profession providing for an exception, i.e., the doctor's failure to take or withdraw from treatment of a patient for important reasons, in a situation where there is no urgent case. CONCLUSIONS: The starting point is, therefore, the distinction between the provisions of the Labor Code of a general character legis generalis and the provisions of the Act on the profession of doctor and dentist as specific provisions legis specialis. An employed doctor cannot agree to practice in conditions that expose patients to harm. Refraining from work by a doctor as an employee by referring is subject to limitations. Med Pr. 2021;72(6):661-9.