Health and Human Rights最新文献

Indigenous community-controlled health care organizations provide timely, sustained, and culturally safe care. However, their expertise is often excluded from health professional education. This limits the transfer of knowledges and protocols to future practitioners-those positioned to shape health care systems and practices that could achieve the health rights of Indigenous people and reduce health and social inequities. In Australia, despite national government commitments to transforming curricula, services, and systems related to Indigenous health, health care training organizations such as universities generally have low numbers of Indigenous staff and few strategies to engage Indigenous experts. The authors of this paper are part of the Bunya Project, an Indigenous-led participatory action research effort designed to support non-Indigenous university staff and curriculum development through partnerships with Indigenous community-controlled organizations. We conducted 24 interviews with Indigenous individuals to ascertain recommendations for health care curricula. Three themes emerged: (1) role-modeling and leadership of Indigenous-controlled health organizations; (2) specific learnings for health professionals; and (3) achieving human rights in practice. Interviews also highlighted the need for health professionals' extension beyond clinical caregiving, and staff and students' development of knowledge, skills, and actions regarding client self-determination in order to promote clients' rights across all aspects of their health care. Critical self-reflection by health professionals is a foundational individual-level skill necessary for cultural safety.

Protecting the rights of people with psychosocial conditions is an important and controversial global aim, particularly in light of multiple calls for reduced coercion catalyzed by General Comment 1 of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which stipulates the replacement of substituted care with supported care. Responding to this and other global calls for reduced coercion is complex globally but can entail particular challenges in developing countries, where resource shortages and environmental barriers are sometimes a significant factor in how people with mental conditions experience involuntary care and encounter limitations to their autonomy. To better understand these complexities, our study explored experiences of involuntary care among people with psychosocial conditions in South Africa. Participants described varying degrees of coercion within involuntary care and found that different approaches from professionals when they were in crisis significantly impacted their illness experience, including their ability to make decisions and feel dignified. Participants' reports include variable feelings and embodied experiences of coercion in different forms and degrees, ambivalence about compliance and resistance while being treated against their will, and gray areas between conventional separations of autonomy and paternalism. On the whole, our analysis troubles binaries about the use or disuse of involuntary care and illustrates the complexity of participants' experiences and views of coercive intervention, which could hold multiple possibilities for both care and autonomy.

Managing residential care facilities (RCFs) includes the ability to manage adverse events while maintaining a human rights-based approach to care and support. Literature investigating rights-based approaches in RCFs is scarce; therefore, an investigation of the current approach in RCFs will inform improvements. This study sought to identify whether RCFs in Ireland upheld a rights-based approach during the course of adverse events by analyzing notifications of adverse events from 2021 taken from the Database of Statutory Notifications from Social Care in Ireland. Data analysis was conducted independently by two researchers. Notifications of adverse events were coded according to whether the human rights principles of fairness, respect, equality, dignity, and autonomy were upheld or violated during the adverse event and its subsequent management. There was some evidence of violations, including staff violations during adverse events and their management, as well as residents violating fellow residents' autonomy, respect, and dignity in notifications of "serious injury" and "allegations of abuse." However, overall, good practice was identified, with residents' human rights upheld by staff. Our findings indicate that a rights-based approach to care and support is being upheld during adverse events and their management, which may indicate that such an approach to care and support has been adopted.

Different Council of Europe organs have been attentive and reactive to specific human rights issues in the COVID-19 context, quickly alerting on the risks of inequitable access to quality health care, vaccines, or medicines for vulnerable groups. Yet these reactions have mainly taken the form of nonbinding instruments such as declarations, statements, and recommendations. Although these reactions derive from the interpretation of binding Council of Europe conventions, the observance or implementation of these conventions is not always monitored. Strasbourg judges have on several occasions confirmed that European Convention on Human Rights case law must consider other international instruments, especially those of other Council of Europe organs, in order to interpret the guarantees of the convention. As a consequence, soft law rules can sometimes indirectly acquire binding force when used as an interpretation and implementation tool for binding treaties. In this paper, I examine how Council of Europe organs interpret the principle of equitable access to health care of appropriate quality in the context of a pandemic and whether and how this interpretation is being implemented within the Council of Europe's interpretation of binding treaties such as the Medicrime Convention, the European Social Charter, and the European Convention on Human Rights.