Human Rights Act 1998 and mental health legislation: implications for the management of mentally ill patients.
(41/434)
In the management of mentally ill patients, there is a tension between protecting the rights of individual patients and safeguarding public safety. The Human Rights Act 1998 emphasises on the former while two recent white papers focus on the latter. This article first examines the extent to which the Mental Health Act 1983 is consistent with the Human Rights Act. It argues that while the recent white papers exploit the gaps in the judgments given by the European courts, its compatibility with human rights is very doubtful. The practical implications of the Human Rights Act for doctors are discussed. (+info)
Challenge of goodness III: public health facing war.
(42/434)
Using moral and empirical analysis, we analyzed and discussed the role of public health in prevention of war as well as its function during and after the war. The idea is to develop a theory and new strategy in the spirit of public health to improve practices in preserving and strengthening peace, to be prepared for the future. The experiences from the last four wars in South Eastern Europe were ethical challenges to public health. We identified and described four models of public health practice in the past wars and conflicts. Based on the recent wars, the two new models, Professional Model and Peace Model, were developed and suggested as a new public health strategy in prevention and alleviation of the health burden of war. (+info)
Human rights approach to health.
(43/434)
Adopting human rights approach to health carries many benefits, because it emphasizes the equality of all persons and their inherent right to health as the foundation of the health care system. It also argues that promotion and protection of health are fundamentally important social goals, focuses particularly on the needs of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable communities, balances individual needs with the common good, and so forth. However, it also raises some practical issues, such as organization of interdisciplinary education and work, and different use of the language, which often goes unacknowledged. The relationship between human rights and health is a reciprocal one, and can be beneficial or harmful. For the relationship to be beneficial and successful, the differences between human rights and public health approach to health, centered around the perspective taking, attitudes, and abilities of health professionals, need to be acknowledged and reconciled, and the need for interdisciplinarity adequately fulfilled. (+info)
The Perruche judgment and the "right not to be born".
(44/434)
The French government has given in to public pressure and overturned a controversial legal ruling which recognised the right of a disabled child to seek damages. Most notably, the ruling, widely described as establishing a child's right "not to be born", had provoked "outrage" amongst groups defending the rights of the disabled and led to a ban on prenatal scans by French gynaecologists. Once again, only parents will be able to seek damages but some people think the ruling has been misinterpreted. (+info)
Reflections on a new medical cosmology.
(45/434)
Since the nineteenth century the theory and practice of mainstream Western medicine has been grounded in the biomedical model. In the later years of the twentieth century, however, it has faced a range of serious problems, which when viewed collectively, remain unresolved despite a variety of responses. The question we now face is whether these problems can be dealt with by modifying and extending the principles underlying the biomedical model, or whether a more radical solution is required. Recent critiques of Western medicine have focused mainly on the biopsychosocial model in relation to the former approach, but it will be contended that this cannot deal adequately with the challenges that medicine currently faces, because although it addresses both the scientific and humanistic aspects of medicine it fails to harmonise them. I shall therefore argue for the necessity of a more radical approach, and suggest that what is required to accomplish this is the development of a new medical cosmology, rooted in an older and more global framework. Such a fundamental change would inevitably involve a long term process which it is not yet possible to fully comprehend let alone specify in detail. Some of the necessary features of such a new medical cosmology can, however, already be distinguished and the outline of these is described. (+info)
Thomson, the right to life, and partial birth abortion or two MULES for Sister Sarah.
(46/434)
In this paper, I argue that Thomson's famous attempt to reconcile the fetus's putative right to life with robust abortion rights is not tenable. Given her view, whether or not an abortion violates the fetus's right to life depends on the abortion procedure utilised. And I argue that Thomson's view implies that any late term abortion that involves feticide is impermissible. In particular, this would rule out the partial birth abortion technique which has been so controversial of late. (+info)
The human right to adequate housing: a tool for promoting and protecting individual and community health.
(47/434)
The human right to adequate housing is enshrined in international law. The right to adequate housing can be traced to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was unanimously adopted by the world community in 1948. Since that time, the right to adequate housing has been reaffirmed on numerous occasions and further defined and elaborated. A key component of this right is habitability of housing, which should comply with health and safety standards. Therefore, the right to adequate housing provides an additional tool for advocates and others interested in promoting healthful housing and living conditions and thereby protecting individual and community health. (+info)
A future like ours revisited.
(48/434)
It is claimed by the future like ours anti-abortion argument that since killing adult humans is wrong because it deprives them of a future of value and the fetus has a future of value, killing fetuses is wrong in the same way that killing adult human beings is wrong. In The morality of abortion and the deprivation of futures (this journal, April 2000) I argued that the persuasive power of this argument rests upon an equivocation on the term "future of value". If the expression means "a potential future of value" then the moral claim is implausible because people do not in general have rights to what they need to fulfill their potential; if the expression means "self-represented future of value" then the argument fails because the fetus does not represent its future. Under no interpretation is the argument sound. In Deprivations, futures and the wrongness of killing (this journal, December 2001) Donald Marquis, author of the future like ours argument, responds at length to this objection. In the present essay the focus of the debate shifts to the proper interpretation of the right not to be killed. Donald Marquis argues that this liberty right entails the welfare right to the means necessary to sustain life; I argue that the right not to be killed does not entail unlimited welfare rights. On Marquis's view, the right not to be killed confers upon the fetus the right to whatever it takes to sustain life; on the view I defend, the right not to be killed does not confer upon the fetus or anyone else the right to another person's body. On Marquis's view, abortion is almost never permissible; on my view abortion is almost always permissible. (+info)