Who owns the child in hospital? A preliminary discussion

Aim. To 'own' a person is considered an infringement of human rights, but we suggest that concepts of ownership influence interactions between parents and staff when a child is admitted to hospital. This paper aims to stimulate debate and contains an explanation of the exploration of the literature for research and discussion of ownership of the child. Method. A wide variety of library indexes, databases and populist media were examined although it was impossible to examine all literature which may have contained references to this topic, and, apart from databases which contained abstracts in English, we could not include literature written in any language other than English, Swedish, and Icelandic. Findings. We found no research that examines how concepts of ownership of a child affects communication between health professionals and parents and, ultimately, the delivery of health care. This paper begins discussion on the issues. Discussion. Historical literature shows that ownership of humans has been a part of many cultures, and parents were once considered to own their children. Ownership of another has legal connotations, for instance in guardianship struggles of children during marriage breakup and in ethical debates over surrogacy and products of assisted conception. Within health care, it becomes a contentious issue in transplantation of body parts, in discourse on autonomy and informed consent, and for religious groups who refuse blood transfusions. In health care, models such as family centred care and partnership in care depend on positive communication between parents and staff. If a hospital staff member feels that he/she owns a child for whom he/she is caring, then conflict between the staff member and the parents over who has the 'best interests of the child' at heart is possible. Conclusion. We encourage debate about concepts of who owns the hospitalized child - the parents or the staff? Should it be argued at all? Is the whole concept of ownership of another, be it adult or child, the ethical antithesis to modern beliefs about human rights? Comment on this issue is invited.

Do nations' mental health policies, programs and legislation influence their suicide rates? An ecological study of 100 countries

Objective: To test the hypothesis that the presence of national mental health policies, programs and legislation would be associated with lower national suicide rates. Method: Suicide rates from 100 countries were regressed on mental health policy, program and legislation indicators. Results: Contrary to the hypothesized relationship, the study found that after introducing mental health initiatives (with the exception of substance abuse policies), countries' suicide rates rose. Conclusion: It is of concern that most mental health initiatives are associated with an increase in suicide rates. However, there may be acceptable reasons for the observed findings, for example initiatives may have been introduced in areas of increasing need, or a case-finding effect may be operating. Data limitations must also be considered.

Exclusionary DNA of forensic workers and Australian forensic procedures legislation

Consideration of regulatory issues covering exclusionary DNA of forensic workers - probative effect of eliminating extraneous DNA in a criminal prosecution - current regulatory scheme leaves the legal position of forensic workers' exclusionary DNA obscure.

Does being against euthanasia legislation equate to being anti-euthanasia?

This study investigated issues raised in qualitative data from our previous studies of health professionals and community members, which suggested that being opposed to euthanasia legislation did not necessarily equate to being anti-euthanasia per se. A postal survey of 1002 medical practitioners, 1000 nurses and 1200 community members was undertaken. In addition to a direct question on changing the law to allow active voluntary euthanasia (AVE), four statements assessed attitudes to euthanasia with or without a change in legislation. Responses were received from 405 doctors (43%), 429 nurses (45%) and 405 community members (38%). Compared with previous studies there was a slight increase in support for a change in the law from medical practitioners, a slight decrease in support from community members and almost no change among nurses. Different interpretations of the results of the four attitude questions are possible, depending on the perspective of the interpreter.