To act or not to act, that is the question: informed consent in a criminal perspective

Some years ago the doctor was seen as the one who "knows better", and it was absolutely unconceivable that the patient could refuse the suggested treatment or even ask any questions about it. Differently, nowadays doctors face demands to keep their patients informed and can even be sued when they act without patient knowledge and consent. On the patient's side this new paradigm does not necessarily legitimate euthanasia--still criminally forbidden in most parts of the world--but allows some kind of personal power over body, health and life, materialized in advance directives. On the doctor's side, it entails a change in the list of good medical practices, imposing the doctrine of informed consent and the prohibition of dysthanasia.     

由谁来行使知情同意的权利:患者还是家属?

知情同意权是患者的一项基本权利,但是在我国目前的医疗实务中,该项权利却普遍地由患者的家属予以行使.本文围绕应当由谁来行使“有同意能力的患者”的知情同意权这一问题,由现行法的态度出发,从正反两个角度论证了应当由患者本人行使其知情同意权的观点.     

由谁来行使知情同意的权利:患者还是家属?

知情同意权是患者的一项基本权利,但是在我国目前的医疗实务中,该项权利却普遍地由患者的家属予以行使。本文围绕应当由谁来行使“有同意能力的患者”的知情同意权这一问题,由现行法的态度出发,从正反两个角度论证了应当由患者本人行使其知情同意权的观点。     

You have the right not to have a hearing: an evaluation of the impact of fully advising civilly committed patients on their rights

There have long been calls for the reduction of coercion in treating civilly committed psychiatric patients. The present study assessed whether a minor procedural change intended to reduce the adversarial nature of the treatment process would have a positive impact. Results suggested that the change in procedure had a positive effect for the most direct outcome variables but results were more mixed for the indirect outcome variables. Nonetheless, overall indications were that the change of procedure affected patient outcome.