Cross Border Health Care: An Analysis of Recent ECJ Rulings

Recent rulings of the European Court of Justice show a trend towards a virtual European health-care basket. Four developments underlie this trend. First, the competence of the European Union seems to mature in the field of health care. Secondly, through a variety of authorisation procedures, individual Member States can to a large extent determine the conditions for cross border care. Thirdly, recent court cases indicate that the co-ordination of cross border care increasingly becomes a EU matter. Finally, in particular border regions, more flexible procedures for cross border care are being developed. An analysis of these developments from an (economic) institutional/constitutional point of view shows that potential Pareto-improvements can be expected from recent changes. These improvements depend on the institutional/constitutional framework into which these rules and engagements are embedded. Our analysis suggests that, although the current (increasing) role for the EU seems desirable, diminishing the role that individual Member States can play is not. National authorisation procedures, local/regional arrangements and flexible rulings are mechanisms that can secure an efficient level of output and an optimal size of the jurisdiction responsible for cross border care. This leads to the following recommendations: Current authorisation procedures (which differ per Member State) have to be maintained in order to secure an optimal community size for cross border services and goods; Bilateral agreements and flexible procedures in cross border regions should be stimulated in order to adapt institutional arrangements to the demand for cross border care by (a group of) individuals. The increased competency of the EU in the field of health care can best be used to make authorisation procedures more consistent and stimulate regional cross border care arrangements.     

医疗权的伦理辩护

为国家设定建立医疗保障体系和高效优质的医疗服务体系以保障和促进人民健康义务的基本人权是医疗权,而不是健康权.合作抵御包括疾病在内的自然的侵害,是人际社会形成的重要根据.现代医疗服务已经成为一种基本的善,一种人之生命的必需.病人的医疗权是病人对分享社会合作成果的一种期待,这种期待具有伦理的正当性,能够得到伦理的辩护.这种作为正当性期待的医疗权本身又要受限于权利秩序中当时的条件和资源.     

论公安民警的身体健康及自我保健

一个时期以来,公安民警积劳成疾、英年早逝的事例时有发生,令人痛心。各地调查发现,公安民警身体健康状况不容乐观,已给我们敲响警钟。造成公安民警身体健康出现问题特别是出现积劳成疾的原因很复杂,其中不健康的生活方式和观念是“头号杀手”。健康是生命的基础,健康水平决定生命的质量。作为公安民警自身来说,要改善健康状况,提高生命质量,提升战斗力,必须构建健康的生活方式。     

Safety, Health Care, and Bonding Within an Ecobehavioral Approach to Treating and Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect

This paper describes Project SafeCare, an ecobehavioral research and treatment project with families reported or at risk for child abuse or neglect. Preliminary demographic data are reviewed along with indirect assessment data. Four case studies are described to exemplify the effects of training provided to families. The implications for the current assessment data, treatment, and outcome are discussed.     

限定刑事责任能力评定量表在暴力案件中的应用

目的研究《限定刑事责任能力评定量表》在暴力案件中的使用情况。方法对103例暴力犯罪案件中的被鉴定人分别使用《限定刑事责任能力评定量表》、《暴力作案刑事责任能力评定量表》进行评定,并同专家结论进行比较:使用BPRS对精神症状评分:对被评定为限定责任能力的案例进行三级划分。结果量表总分的组内相关系数ICC=0.9073:全量表同质信度Cronbachα=0.9572,分半相关系数分别为0.994和0.991,二者相关系数r=0.969。《限定刑事责任能力评定量表》总分和《暴力作案刑事责任能力评定量表》总分相关较高.r=0.946。量表结论与专家结论的一致性高,Kappa=0.95。限定责任能力案件得分与专家分级意见的一致性高:Kappa=0.97。《限定刑事责任能力评定量表》总分和BPRS总分相关性高,r=-0.797。结论《限定刑事责任能力评定量表》在暴力案件的鉴定中具有可用性。     

精神病人限定刑事责任能力评定量表在精神发育迟滞违法者中的运用

目的探讨精神病人限定刑事责任能力评定量表（Diminished Criminal Responsibility Rating Scale,DCRRS）在精神发育迟滞违法者司法鉴定中的运用。方法多中心收集121例被评定为限定刑事责任能力的精神发育迟滞违法者资料,完成量表评定,同时将限定刑事责任能力进行小部分、部分、大部分三级划分。结果小部分组、部分组、大部分组量表评定总分的平均分依次升高,分别为22.12±4.69、25.50±5.48、27.59±5.69,差异具有统计学意义;量表中17个条目的评定分与总分相关,相关系数0.289～0.665;因子分析得到6个因子,能解释69.392%变异。结论DCRRS内部构建合理,在精神发育迟滞者司法鉴定中,其评定总分能在一定程度上反映三级限定刑事责任能力之间的差异。