[Eisophca]

Quote: Patients Rights Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Yeldan UN Mission

Description: NOTING that a healthy population is a more productive population and the better the overall health of citizens, the better a nation?s economy can thrive;

BELIEVING that all persons have the right to participate in the assessment of their needs, the development of their treatment plans and to receive information concerning their condition and treatment;

ASSERTING that medical professionals must be able to provide these services without government interference in the doctor/patient relationship or corruption;

FURTHER ASSERTING that patients have the right to expect confidential treatment of all communications and records about their care and the right to receive information concerning their condition and treatment;

The General Assembly of the United Nations declares that:

(I) Decisions concerning medical treatment, medical procedures and treatment options shall rest with the patient and his or her attending physician.

(II) All citizens of all UN member nations have the right to undergo any medical procedure, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has granted them immunity from giving such rights.

(III) Patients may refuse treatment and such refusal shall be verbal or in writing provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others.
(i) A physician may give emergency medical treatment without the patient?s consent if, because of the emergency circumstances, including the patient?s physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain his consent.

(IV) Patients have the right to be given full and accurate information about the nature of their illnesses, diagnostic procedures, the proposed treatment and the costs involved.

(V) Patients have the right to know by name the persons directly and personally involved in their care.

(VI) Consultations between patients and physicians shall be held in the strictest confidentiality and shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.

(VII) Personal medical records and the contents of such records shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.

(VIII) No medical facility or physician shall discriminate between patients on grounds of religion, race, sex, nationality, country of birth, or other such grounds.

(IX) For the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of 16, or is an adult unable to understand his or her rights under this Act.

(X) In cases involving adult conjoined twins who are both capable of exercising their rights under this act, acceptance or refusal of treatment shall be required of each twin. In cases involving minor conjoined twins or in instances where one or both twins are incapable of giving consent, decisions shall rest with the guardian or physician as per Articles III(i) and IX.

Co-Authored by: Waterana[/quote]
Like usual, I'm not going to vote except to break a tie, but I'd like to point out that this prevents law enforcement personnel from accessing medical records for forensic purposes.

My vote will be cast in accordance with the region's on Tuesday.

[Antrium]

I added a poll

I think I'm going to ABSTAIN on this one. I think the overall idea is great, but what you said about the confidentiality clause is true. And couldn't it also prevent physicians from telling the government about the risk of an epidemic, if the patients didn't allow it?

[Eisophca]

AntriumMay 21 2006, 08:32 AM I think I'm going to ABSTAIN on this one. I think the overall idea is great, but what you said about the confidentiality clause is true. And couldn't it also prevent physicians from telling the government about the risk of an epidemic, if the patients didn't allow it? [/quote]
Yes, that's also been brought up on Jolt.

[Groot Gouda]

It's Yelda's, so I'm voting for. The confidentiality clause will not be a problem in Groot Gouda. I fail to see how it could stop doctors spreading information on an epidemic, as that doesn't require personal files to be spread out, only the aggregate information which cannot be traced to one single person.

FOR.

[Keeslandia]

We're going with Groot on this one and supporting the resolution.

[Grosseschnauzer]

Like the idea, but agree that the confidentiality clauses poses public health concerns as well as possible law enforcement issues -- such as when the patient is the victim of a crime, there are injuries to the patient, and the patient is unable to give consent.

I'll ABSTAIN.

[Eisophca]

Another issue is that if a doctor is grossly negligent and causes a patient to die, there is no way for the state to get the records to see if the doctor really caused the death.

[Groot Gouda]

CeoranaMay 22 2006, 11:55 PM Another issue is that if a doctor is grossly negligent and causes a patient to die, there is no way for the state to get the records to see if the doctor really caused the death. [/quote]
Where do you get that from? All you need is the patient's consent, or, if the patient is unable to give that due to being unable to understand those rights (for example by being dead), a legal guardian can. I fail to mistrust people so much to interfere with legal research in that case.

[Yeldan IDU Territory]

CeoranaMay 22 2006, 04:55 PMAnother issue is that if a doctor is grossly negligent and causes a patient to die, there is no way for the state to get the records to see if the doctor really caused the death. [/quote]
Ceo, that's not going to happen. At least that's not how it will happen in the Yeldan (or Yeldan UN Mission) legal system. When the first one of these cases lands in court, the judge will rule that the rights granted by the UN resolution no longer apply because the "patient" is dead. It will be a very quick decision. Ceorana has a judiciary, let it do its job.

I didn't include anything about what happens to the medical records after death because I didn't see it as necessary. The proposal doesn't address the issue one way or the other and your courts can handle medical records of the deceased as they see fit.

[Grosseschnauzer]

Quote: Where do you get that from? All you need is the patient's consent, or, if the patient is unable to give that due to being unable to understand those rights (for example by being dead), a legal guardian can. I fail to mistrust people so much to interfere with legal research in that case. [/quote]

It isn't always the case that a patient who is severely injured has a legal guardian in place. So yes, my concern expressed before is legitimate.

[Eisophca]

FranxicoMay 23 2006, 08:00 AM CeoranaMay 22 2006, 04:55 PMAnother issue is that if a doctor is grossly negligent and causes a patient to die, there is no way for the state to get the records to see if the doctor really caused the death. [/quote]
Ceo, that's not going to happen. At least that's not how it will happen in the Yeldan (or Yeldan UN Mission) legal system. When the first one of these cases lands in court, the judge will rule that the rights granted by the UN resolution no longer apply because the "patient" is dead. It will be a very quick decision. Ceorana has a judiciary, let it do its job.

I didn't include anything about what happens to the medical records after death because I didn't see it as necessary. The proposal doesn't address the issue one way or the other and your courts can handle medical records of the deceased as they see fit. [/quote]
OK, suppose the person without a legal guardian goes into a permanent vegetative state, aka alive but not going anywhere, and had a will not wanting euthanasia, in the same situation. There's no denying that they're still a patient.

Or suppose some lawyers want to prove that the alleged victim of a crime was in a hospital at the time they alleged they were assaulted somewhere else? No way to get the records.

Et cetera.

[Yeldan IDU Territory]

Ceorana  OK, suppose the person without a legal guardian goes into a permanent vegetative state, aka alive but not going anywhere, and had a will not wanting euthanasia, in the same situation. There's no denying that they're still a patient.[/quote]
The court appoints a legal guardian. Happens all the time.
Ceorana Or suppose some lawyers want to prove that the alleged victim of a crime was in a hospital at the time they alleged they were assaulted somewhere else? No way to get the records.[/quote]
The fact that a person is or is not/was or was not admitted to a facility at a given time is not a "Personal medical record". Hospitals in RL can release that information at their own discretion, over the phone in fact. I don't think that's even covered by the RL Privacy Act.

[Eisophca]

FranxicoMay 23 2006, 08:35 PM Ceorana  OK, suppose the person without a legal guardian goes into a permanent vegetative state, aka alive but not going anywhere, and had a will not wanting euthanasia, in the same situation. There's no denying that they're still a patient.[/quote]
The court appoints a legal guardian. Happens all the time.
[/quote]
OK, that makes sense I guess.
Quote: Ceorana Or suppose some lawyers want to prove that the alleged victim of a crime was in a hospital at the time they alleged they were assaulted somewhere else? No way to get the records.[/quote]
The fact that a person is or is not/was or was not admitted to a facility at a given time is not a "Personal medical record". Hospitals in RL can release that information at their own discretion, over the phone in fact. I don't think that's even covered by the RL Privacy Act.[/quote]
You are missing the point. Suppose a plaintiff sues for assault with a stick in a hospital, but defense would like to say that the plaintiff was suffering from a condition that would have made him die instantly if hit with a stick. Or a plaintiff sues for damages relating to a person hitting him with a stick, but defense wants to prove tha the plaintiff had medical problems that caused the damage. Whatever. The point is that our legal system isn't comfortable ruling some of the solutions, and some are outright against the proposal. Why weren't exceptions included in the proposal?

[Yeldan IDU Territory]

Issue a subpoena. If they refuse to sign a release and surrender the documents, hold them in contempt of court and throw them in jail. Where does it say you can't do that?

[Eisophca]

In Ceorana, that wouldn't hold up in court at the moment (we believe that forced consent is not valid "consent" and our laws accommodate that) but I suppose we could change them around a bit...

In accordance with the region's vote, I will be casting the region's vote tentatively FOR the resolution.

[Yeldan IDU Territory]

I haven't voted in the poll because Franxico is not in the UN. It looks like it's 2 for, 2 abstaining. Ceo, if you don't feel comfortable voting for it, just abstain. I won't mind (I promise), it looks like it will pass anyway.

I guess you and I have differing views on compliance and how resolutions are implemented in our nations. I've always assumed that our legislatures and courts have considerable leeway in interpreting resolutions. (I've also always assumed that these documents are hundreds or even thousands of pages long like they would be in RL. Not the 3500 character "condensed version" we vote on. That "grey area" is where your nation gets to "fill in the blanks").

[Eisophca]

This resolution has passed.