Cargando…
Public attitudes and health law in conflict: somatic vs. mental care, role of next of kin, and the right to refuse treatment and information
BACKGROUND: Norwegian law and regulations regarding patient autonomy and the use of coercion are in conflict with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the Oviedo Convention on several points. A new law concerning the use of coercion in Norwegian health services has be...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7780687/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33390168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05990-0 |
_version_ | 1783631551129452544 |
---|---|
author | Wikstøl, David Pedersen, Reidar Magelssen, Morten |
author_facet | Wikstøl, David Pedersen, Reidar Magelssen, Morten |
author_sort | Wikstøl, David |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Norwegian law and regulations regarding patient autonomy and the use of coercion are in conflict with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the Oviedo Convention on several points. A new law concerning the use of coercion in Norwegian health services has been proposed. In this study we wanted to investigate the attitudes of the Norwegian lay populace with regards to some of these points of conflict. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire with 9 propositions about patient autonomy, the use of coercion, the role of next of kin, and equality of rights and regulations across somatic and mental health care was completed by 1617 Norwegian adults (response rate 8.5%). RESULTS: A majority of respondents support the patient’s right to refuse treatment and information in serious illness, that previously expressed treatment preferences should be respected, that next of kin’s right to information and authority in clinical decision-making should be strengthened, and that this kind of legal regulations should be equal across somatic and mental health care. CONCLUSIONS: The findings in this study suggest that the opinions of the Norwegian lay populace are in conflict with the national law on several points relating to patient autonomy, the role of next of kin and use of coercive measures, and different legal regulation of somatic vs. mental health care. The study suggests that the populace is more in line with the CRPD, which supports equal rights across somatic and mental health care, and the Oviedo Convention, which does not allow for the same degree of strong paternalism regarding coercive measures as the current Norwegian law. This can be taken to support the recently proposed legislation on the use and limitation of coercion in Norwegian health services. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-020-05990-0. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7780687 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77806872021-01-05 Public attitudes and health law in conflict: somatic vs. mental care, role of next of kin, and the right to refuse treatment and information Wikstøl, David Pedersen, Reidar Magelssen, Morten BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Norwegian law and regulations regarding patient autonomy and the use of coercion are in conflict with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the Oviedo Convention on several points. A new law concerning the use of coercion in Norwegian health services has been proposed. In this study we wanted to investigate the attitudes of the Norwegian lay populace with regards to some of these points of conflict. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire with 9 propositions about patient autonomy, the use of coercion, the role of next of kin, and equality of rights and regulations across somatic and mental health care was completed by 1617 Norwegian adults (response rate 8.5%). RESULTS: A majority of respondents support the patient’s right to refuse treatment and information in serious illness, that previously expressed treatment preferences should be respected, that next of kin’s right to information and authority in clinical decision-making should be strengthened, and that this kind of legal regulations should be equal across somatic and mental health care. CONCLUSIONS: The findings in this study suggest that the opinions of the Norwegian lay populace are in conflict with the national law on several points relating to patient autonomy, the role of next of kin and use of coercive measures, and different legal regulation of somatic vs. mental health care. The study suggests that the populace is more in line with the CRPD, which supports equal rights across somatic and mental health care, and the Oviedo Convention, which does not allow for the same degree of strong paternalism regarding coercive measures as the current Norwegian law. This can be taken to support the recently proposed legislation on the use and limitation of coercion in Norwegian health services. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-020-05990-0. BioMed Central 2021-01-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7780687/ /pubmed/33390168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05990-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Wikstøl, David Pedersen, Reidar Magelssen, Morten Public attitudes and health law in conflict: somatic vs. mental care, role of next of kin, and the right to refuse treatment and information |
title | Public attitudes and health law in conflict: somatic vs. mental care, role of next of kin, and the right to refuse treatment and information |
title_full | Public attitudes and health law in conflict: somatic vs. mental care, role of next of kin, and the right to refuse treatment and information |
title_fullStr | Public attitudes and health law in conflict: somatic vs. mental care, role of next of kin, and the right to refuse treatment and information |
title_full_unstemmed | Public attitudes and health law in conflict: somatic vs. mental care, role of next of kin, and the right to refuse treatment and information |
title_short | Public attitudes and health law in conflict: somatic vs. mental care, role of next of kin, and the right to refuse treatment and information |
title_sort | public attitudes and health law in conflict: somatic vs. mental care, role of next of kin, and the right to refuse treatment and information |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7780687/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33390168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05990-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wikstøldavid publicattitudesandhealthlawinconflictsomaticvsmentalcareroleofnextofkinandtherighttorefusetreatmentandinformation AT pedersenreidar publicattitudesandhealthlawinconflictsomaticvsmentalcareroleofnextofkinandtherighttorefusetreatmentandinformation AT magelssenmorten publicattitudesandhealthlawinconflictsomaticvsmentalcareroleofnextofkinandtherighttorefusetreatmentandinformation |