Restraint in somatic healthcare: how should it be regulated?

IF 3.3 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-02-08 DOI:10.1136/jme-2023-109240
Amina Guenna Holmgren, Ann-Christin von Vogelsang, Anna Lindblad, Niklas Juth
{"title":"Restraint in somatic healthcare: how should it be regulated?","authors":"Amina Guenna Holmgren, Ann-Christin von Vogelsang, Anna Lindblad, Niklas Juth","doi":"10.1136/jme-2023-109240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Restraint is regularly used in somatic healthcare settings, and countries have chosen different paths to regulate restraint in somatic healthcare. One overarching problem when regulating restraint is to ensure that patients with reduced decision-making capacity receive the care they need and at the same time ensure that patients with a sufficient degree of decision-making capacity are not forced into care that they do not want. Here, arguments of justice, trust in the healthcare system, minimising harm and respecting autonomy are contrasted with different national regulations. We conclude that a regulation that incorporates an assessment of patients' decision-making capacity and considers the patient's best interests is preferable, in contrast to regulations based on psychiatric diagnoses or regulations where there are no legal possibilities to exercise restraint at all in somatic care.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2023-109240","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Restraint is regularly used in somatic healthcare settings, and countries have chosen different paths to regulate restraint in somatic healthcare. One overarching problem when regulating restraint is to ensure that patients with reduced decision-making capacity receive the care they need and at the same time ensure that patients with a sufficient degree of decision-making capacity are not forced into care that they do not want. Here, arguments of justice, trust in the healthcare system, minimising harm and respecting autonomy are contrasted with different national regulations. We conclude that a regulation that incorporates an assessment of patients' decision-making capacity and considers the patient's best interests is preferable, in contrast to regulations based on psychiatric diagnoses or regulations where there are no legal possibilities to exercise restraint at all in somatic care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
身体保健中的约束:应该如何监管?
约束在躯体医疗环境中经常使用,各国选择了不同的途径来规范躯体医疗中的约束。监管约束时的一个首要问题是确保决策能力下降的患者得到他们需要的护理,同时确保决策能力足够的患者不会被迫接受他们不想要的护理。在这里,正义、对医疗系统的信任、最大限度地减少伤害和尊重自主权的论点与不同的国家法规形成了对比。我们得出的结论是,与基于精神病诊断的法规或在身体护理中根本没有法律限制的法规相比,纳入对患者决策能力评估并考虑患者最大利益的法规更可取。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Ethics
Journal of Medical Ethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
164
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Ethics is a leading international journal that reflects the whole field of medical ethics. The journal seeks to promote ethical reflection and conduct in scientific research and medical practice. It features articles on various ethical aspects of health care relevant to health care professionals, members of clinical ethics committees, medical ethics professionals, researchers and bioscientists, policy makers and patients. Subscribers to the Journal of Medical Ethics also receive Medical Humanities journal at no extra cost. JME is the official journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics.
期刊最新文献
Argument for allowing first-in-human cardiac xenotransplantation clinical trials in paediatric patients. Advancing the scholarship of clinical ethics consultation. Autonomy versus exclusion in xenotransplantation trials. Distributive justice, best options and organ markets: a reply to Semrau. The ethics of synthetic DNA.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1