Annotation taken, in the perspective of criminal and constitutional law, as well as in criminology, to the decision of the portuguese constitutional court, of January 13, 2011 – with respect to the problems of “consent” and “medical act”

1 – Summary of the decision taken by the Portuguese Constitutional Court, of January 13, 2011; 2 – Complete text of the decision of the Portuguese Constitutional Court, of January 13, 2011, Judge Maria João ANTUNES (Reporter), Judge Carlos Pamplona de OLIVEIRA, Judge José Borges SOEIRO, Judge Gil GALVÃO, Judge Rui Manuel Moura RAMOS (President) –in terms of the tribunalconstitucional.pt, August 1, 2011; 3 – Brief annotation to the problem of the “medical act”; 3.1 – Plus some conclusions on the brief annotation to the problem of the “medical act”; 3.2 – Brief annotation to the problem of “consent”– continuation of the previous comments; 4 – Conclusions. It must never be forgotten that “consent” does not stand as the only cause of exclusion of unlawfulness.

Conflicts between employee preferences and ergonomic recommendations in shift scheduling: regulation based on consent is not sufficient

OBJECTIVE: Contribution to the discussion of the role of participation/consent of employees in working hours regulation. METHODS: Exploratory analysis of conflicts between preferences of employees and ergonomic recommendations in shift scheduling by analysing a large number of participative shift scheduling projects. RESULTS: The analysis showed that very often the pursuit of higher income played the major role in the decision making process of employees and employees preferred working hours in conflict with health and safety principles. CONCLUSIONS: First, the consent of employees or the works council alone does not ensure ergonomically sound schedules. Besides consent, risk assessment procedures seem to be a promising but difficult approach. Secondly, more research is necessary to check the applicability of recommendations under various settings, to support the risk assessment processes and to improve regulatory approaches to working hours.

Consent (Consent to Examination Treatment or Care)

Consent (Consent to Examination Treatment or Care)

Consent - Patient Information Leaflet- Consent - it's up to you (PDF 15 KB)

Consent - Patient Information Leaflet- Consent - it's up to you

Assessment of the capacity to consent to treatment in patients admitted to acute medical wards

RAPPORT DE SYNTHÈSE : Introduction: L'évaluation de la capacité de discernement est importante d'un point de vue légal et éthique dans l'activité médicale quotidienne. Dans cette étude, nous avons évalué attentivement la capacité de discernement chez les patients admis dans un service médical aigu en utilisant l'évaluation du personnel médical, le score spécifique de Silberfeld, le MMSE ainsi que l'évaluation du psychiatre. Méthode : Pendant 3 mois, 195 patients admis dans un service de médecine interne d'un hôpital universitaire ont été inclus et leur capacité de discernement a été évaluée durant les premières 72 heures d'admission. Résultats : Sur les 195 patients, 38 furent incapables de discernement manifestement (patients inconscients ou avec des déficits cognitifs sévères) et 14 furent considérés incapables de discernement par le psychiatre (prévalence de l'incapacité de discernement de 26.7%). La corrélation entre l'évaluation du psychiatre et le questionnaire de Silberfeld fut faible (sensibilité 35.7%, spécificité 91.6%). Les cliniciens expérimentés montrèrent une plus haute corrélation (sensibilité 57.1 %, spécificité 96.5%). L'avis partagé par l'assistant, par le chef de clinique et l'infirmière se révéla le meilleur indicateur de l'évaluation psychiatrique (sensibilité 78.6%, spécificité 94.3%). Conclusion : La prévalence de l'incapacité de discernement chez les patients admis dans un service de médecine interne est élevée. Alors que le questionnaire de Silberfeld et le MMSE ne sont pas indiqués pour évaluer la capacité de discernement dans cette étude, l'évaluation par une équipe médicale multidisciplinaire reflète le mieux l'évaluation du psychiatre.

FLYER: Ethics, Consent and Participation in Research With Children and Young People

  Date: Friday, 14 June 2013   Time:10:30 – 13.30 Location: G13, Western Gateway Building, University College Cork The children's Research Network for Ireland and Northern Ireland in conjunction with the Children and Young People Research Cluster at the Institute for Social Sciences in the 21st Century at UCC are holding a workshop on ethics, consent and participation in research with children and young people. The event will explore some of the complex ethical issues involved in conducting research with children and young people, from the perspectives of researchers, children, families and service-providers.  

Proposing a 'Consent Commons' in open education - balancing the desire for openness with the rights of people to refuse or withdraw from participation

A new 'Consent Commons' licensing framework is proposed, complementing Creative Commons, to clarify the permissions given for using and reusing clinical and non-clinical digital recordings of people (patients and non-patients) for educational purposes. Consent Commons is a sophisticated expression of ethically based 'digital professionalism', which recognises the rights of patients, carers, their families, teachers, clinicians, students and members of the public to have some say in how their digital recordings are used (including refusing or withdrawing their consent), and is necessary in order to ensure the long term sustainability of teaching materials, including Open Educational Resources (OER). Consent Commons can ameliorate uncertainty about the status of educational resources depicting people, and protect institutions from legal risk by developing robust and sophisticated policies and promoting best practice in managing their information.