Community-based care and compulsion: what role for human rights?

This article considers the role of traditional conceptions of human rights in relation to the challenges posed by community treatment orders (CTOs). It explores how traditional rights discourse in mental health, which has focused on the rights of liberty and autonomy, is to be located within the landscape of community-based mental health law. Using jurisprudence arising under the European Convention on Human Rights, it identifies the limitations of traditional rights in this context. However, it argues that traditional concepts such as liberty and privacy still have a role to play.     

Cervical manipulation--how might informed consent be obtained before treatment?

This article discusses methods and mediums of obtaining informed consent in physiotherapy clinical practice, specifically in relation to cervical manipulation. Whilst cervical manipulation is a useful method of treatment for spinal joint pain and dysfunction, it has also been shown to be ineffective or even positively harmful. Legal precedents have set boundaries for informing patients of such adverse consequences. However, a degree of uncertainty exists in the physiotherapy profession, as in other health care professions, as to how to obtain informed consent in a busy clinical setting in order to discharge the legal duties owed. Obtaining meaningful informed consent in clinical practice raises issues of patient comprehension, memory and decision-making capacity. A large quantity of research directed at enhancing patient understanding has been undertaken in recent years. The important findings are that a variety of communication methods and mediums need to be employed in both providing information and assessing patient understanding. A combination of verbal, written and audiovisual information provides patients with maximum opportunity to be involved in treatment decisions.     

Governance and community benefit: are nonprofit hospitals good candidates for Sarbanes-Oxley type reforms?

Recent investigations into the activities of nonprofit hospitals have pointed to weak or lax governance on the part of some of these organizations. As a result of these events, various federal and state initiatives are now either under way or under discussion to strengthen the governance of hospitals and other nonprofit corporations through mandatory board structures and practices. However, despite policy makers' growing interest in these types of governance reforms, there is in fact little empirical evidence to support their contribution to the effectiveness of hospital boards. The purpose of this article is to report the results of a study examining the relationship between the structure and practices of nonprofit hospital boards relative to the hospital's provision of community benefits. Our results point to modest relationships between these sets of variables, suggesting considerable limitations to what federal and state policy makers can accomplish through legislative initiatives to improve the governance of nonprofit hospitals.     

Information rights and donor conception: lessons from adoption?

This article reviews the Australian experience in providing information rights for people separated through adoption, and considers its relevance in adjusting the competing interests of those involved in donor conception. The Australian laws, which differ from State to State, create information rights for adults who have been adopted, and also--with more qualifications--for other family members, such as birth parents and siblings. Some laws also seek to protect privacy, notably by use of the "contact veto". The author argues that the review of the Australian laws provides strong support for the rights of donor offspring, when adult, to information about their genetic origins. It also raises important questions about the rights and interests of other family members involved in donor conception, and how they might be accommodated.     

Human and fundamental rights: What are they about?

Conclusion Human rights, distrusted by Bentham, through emergence ofGesellshaft, have sometimes been identified with rights of market men and gradually on an ad hoc basis and so have been given a relational or relativist character for that reason. Such a view ignores the test of humanness or the tele of human rights surviving any political association and the need for full development of human personality as an autonomous being inherent in full respect for all as moral persons. This disposes of the view of human rights in terms of rules of a game, or of connection between human rights and human action, or of the standard of the prudent man or, finally, of the ideology of the rising bourgeoisie. Equally, that very test of humanness disposes of criticisms of the human rights theory based on a concern for implementation of rights, on concentric circles based on the specific and concrete, on the impossibility of liking the billions, on the distinction between negative, positive and administrative rights, on the condition of being able to make valid claims and thereby denying human rights to the deprived millions in poor countries, on the social justice model, on the potential for violence and conflict and, finally, on the vagueness or subjectivity of human rights. An eclectic synthesis not between good and evil nor between right and wrong but between the extremes of the views presented in such critical explanations e.g. between the New Right and the New Left and between Hobbes and Rousseau) is what is needed in order to present a workable theory of human rights in the modern-day world.